Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asrock Graphics Interface

Advertizing. This so called product is a low volume irrelevance. A PCI port that works with AGP cards, except ATI (the leading supplier of discrete graphics cards) card's do not work. So hardly anyone has heard of this product, its not notable, and it does not really even work. So why is it in the WIKI? Timharwoodx 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - no context, and this is not the case of a "rush to delete" as the article has been in existence for almost six months. B.Wind 21:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I can't see the imporance of a slot that appeared on one companies motherbaords for a brief period. --Pboyd04 02:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per Pboyd04 Endomion 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge if anyone can find a likely article, otherwise delete. Minimal worthwhile information in the article, and unlikely to get any worthwhile information added anytime soon. I doubt anyone could write an entire verifiable article on this particular graphics slot. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- ~~Change vote to neutral. Not sure if there's enough content to write an article, but there might be for all I know. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)~~
  - Based on 203.120.68.68's comment below, change vote to merge and redirect, or just redirect if it's really not important enough to go into any articles (more techy people than I should decide that, but I expect it's worth a note somewhere, like in Accelerated Graphics Port). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
SMerge into Accelerated Graphics Port --Quarl 07:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and add info. Asrock is a large manufacturer of budget motherboards and a subsidiary of Asus. I certainly have heard of it, and I have never had an Asrock motherboard. Oh, and it is still appearing on Asrock boards. Cchan199206 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But the article is about the specific port type. Would there be enough content for a full article on it? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It might be worth a footnote in Asrock, I suppose. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into AGP. I use a board which uses this port and was stumped on what it was until I searched the wiki.. And the Radeon 9700 core does work on it as far as I know. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.120.68.68 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 December 2005
merge or keep, product from a large manufacturer. Kappa 05:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assembly of American Unionists

No evidence of its existence; if not hoax then non-notable. Rd232 ^talk 00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

delete zero googles, claims founded December 2005 (this month) so not yet notable. (and may be a hoax). RJFJR 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. «LordViD» 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nom SorryGuy 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Simply not notable. Was made up this month and probably has less than a dozen members. Maybe it was a school project assigned by some silly teacher that involved making a website, and this is what they did. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom VegaDark 10:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete scores the coveted zero Google hits. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 00:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 01:15, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --BenjaminTsai 01:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nonsense. I've also deleted some other similar ones- watch out for any Googol-related matters; they're probably fake. Ral315 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Googolunvigintiplex

This is not a standard number recognized by mathematicians. It got zero googles. It's basically something someone made up. RJFJR 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. SorryGuy 03:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Nonsense pure and simple from the eighth dimension. Endomion 04:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by someone else. Ral315 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outspoken

This page seems to be a hoax, since it lists future dates. I am also sure it doesn't meet WP:Music criteria for notability.Esprit15d 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, as nn band. «LordViD» 02:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, self-promotion is not your friend. :( SorryGuy 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I think this qualifies under the new CSD7 criteria expansion from non-notable biographies into non-notable bands. Also, this page has been the subject of some page blanking vandals, who I reverted. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, and given db-band template. --VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Government Simulation

This is a forum on a free forum host with 86 members. No evidence it meets WP:WEB proposal. Interesting looking site though, I suppose. W.marsh 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per notability VegaDark 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-admitted promotion attempt. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 01:17, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied r3m0t ^talk 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ===TCity=== Delete karmafist 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Non-notable website (100 users), possibly spam Rd232 ^talk 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, NN and an ad. SorryGuy 03:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN / spam. Cnwb 11:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete There are a lot of web sites in the Wikipedia and tcity is growing at a fast pace. They shouldn't be deleted. If you were actually a member, you'd understand. -Member of tCity (Guest) 8:15, 26 December 2005 (EST)

DeleteSpam imo Smerk 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with thanks to the above for clarifying that the site is not, as yet, important. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per reasons the member stated :P Compu ter Joe 22:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:23, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workaurant

Non-notable, I think, term from a commercial for an American restaurant chain. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. SorryGuy 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. rodii 15:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spurious neologism from advert. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not so subtle advertisement. TheRingess 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:22, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WINAD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cristobal Ortiz

Hoax. Cristobal Ortiz is a fake player in a baseball simulation game. See http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/archive/index.php/t-51933.html, and its home page, http://www.ootpdevelopments.com, where it says "Welcome to Out of the Park Developments the home of outstanding sports simulation games for the PC". User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomTheRingess 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. SorryGuy 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ifnord 16:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per excellent nom. Note to self: nominations like this make life a lot easier; remember to post those Google links next time! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. NeoJustin 01:19, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hee. One thing I just noticed. This article claims, "Cristobal Ortiz learned to play baseball from his father who was on the Brazilian oylmpic baseball team". Brazil has never had a baseball team in the Olympics. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigdor Schreibman

Who? What? 9000 google hits, mostly related to some webdesign mailing lists. Non-notable/vanity. Timecop 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Google and DogPile are good at what they do but browsing my website at FINS GLOBAL INFORMATION AGE LIBRARY will go right to the heart of this discussion. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnicapital (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a place to advertise your horrible site. --Timecop 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There is significant discussion about who Vigdor is, for people who are just getting started, and questions about what I do in the land of bloggers. A visit to my website is the most authoritative way to answer those inquiries rather than the all-inclusive attacks and "horror" stories that one sees from the largely uninformed censors who inhabit this domain. I am not a person who is especially sensitive to the quality of the technology over the quality of the content but I did make a quick check on my code for the FINS website using TIDY, my favorite authority. They report 0-errors! with a negligible number of warnings, despite the alarming report by the "Timecop" authority. --Vigdor 10:01, 26 December 2005 {UTC}

Strong keep. This guy was a pathbreaker well before Drudge and is a figure in the internet revolution. Suggest the nom read the NY Times profile from 1996. Vanity? Sounds more like jealousy to me. -- JJay 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If it's jealousy on Timecop's part, why is someone breaking 3RR to plop this tripe into the Blog article? Reeks of vanity to me. Thesquire 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thesquire works hard at his job, I'll give him or her credit for this. He enjoys vandalizing my article on blogs, with page blanking, then posts warnings to me and fanciful "Comments" here and there demanding that users join his masquerade. It looks like the latest career move for the "mind guards" that use every form of coercion to get their way. In a society that is locked in gridlock of complex and conflicting ideas, the technique of coercion that is known as "Groupthink" is working overtime. Wikipedia is the made-to-order site for this destructive cabal. Reworking the meaning of the world guided by the standard of "Neutrality"! Organization of knowledge and approximation of a "world encyclopedia" have flourished since ancient Greek and Roman times. This new venture based on the standards of "Neutrality" is going nowhere. Knowledge organization requires, above all, engagement of the striving human spirit. To say that all we can be is what we are, which is what you get with the direction of "Neutral" ideas is a breakthrough to nowhere. The net result is a war of censorship, something that died a natural death in the Dark Ages, reborn in the 21st century at Wikipedia. Vigdor 11:27, 26 December 2005 {UTC}

Comment: lowering my vote to Keep for the time being as the claim of vanity is starting to become material on this page. -- JJay 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what motivates stupid behaviour or vanity. What matters is the issue at hand- the article raises a relevant historical question, particularly considering that this is an internet encyclopedia. The references I added to the article confirm that Schreibman started an Internet news service and was denied press credentials in Washington. His case may be one of the early precursors in the ongoing confrontation between the old and new medias. -- JJay 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I have never engaged in page blanking, so I frankly do not know what Vigdor is talking about. Also, I would remind him of the Wikipedia policy of No Personal Attacks: a line which I think he's definitely crossed.. I personally know little about the very early history of blogging myself, hence my reluctance to make an actual vote on this article, but I do not appreciate attacks upon my character. That he's resorted to making these false accusations against me rather than argue his own case only points to the weakness of his position. Thesquire 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but you could have avoided the reeks of vanity comment above as well. Every statement here seems to call for a reaction that quickly spins out of control. If the nom had mentioned that there was an edit war at blog, I would have understood the real motivation for this nom and not remarked on what I perceived as jealousy. Anyway, I do find some of the delete votes from new users/infrequent editors a bit strange. -- JJay 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, 130 unique Google hits. I looked up the NYT article but you have to pay for it, but if this guy were so important, there would be more than one article in all of NYT for the last 20 years. Attacking the nominator is never appropriate. And if this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, how do you count unique Google hits? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Google his name, click on the last page of results, and it'll say that only the relevant results are shown. The rest aren't very useful in determining notability. - Bobet 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and never recreate -- Femmina 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. Notable for first blog (even if individual blogs aren't notable). Endomion 03:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a first blog. Nobody heard of this dude or his blog until the article appeared a week ago and someone started spamming half of it into Blog.

Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic. The article author is also violating 3RR trying to paste that whole thing into Blog. Flyboy Will 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It more or less all checks out based on the references I dug up. -- JJay 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agreed it is a bad article but the content needs stay. Clean-up recommended. SorryGuy 03:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This man does sound notable. I had no idea the first blog was written out of the University of Maryland -- my school! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Sounds notable enough to me. User:VanillaX
Strong Delete - Disgusting vanity page. Wikipedia does not need spam such as this on it. I urge all voters keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. Jmax- 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC) User's third contribution -- JJay 20:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Completley non-notable. NPOV and unencyclopedic mess.Cptchipjew 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Cptchipjew. Reyk 11:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm neutral on notability, but... horrible article, vanity, POV, delusions of grandeur. I particularly dislike the revisionist history aspect: just because the author wants some of that sweet "first blog" action doesn't make it true. This is an argument that could happen on the talk page, except that the vanity of the author may make it impossible. I also note that very little of the article is actually about the subject, mostly being about his sites. (That 9000 google hits is actually 132 unique hits, by the way.) And what Zoe said, don't bite the nom. §rodii 15:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Rodii. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and rodii. Ifnord 16:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nauseating vanity. Subject appears to get fewer unique Google hits than I do! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete Per JJay Compu ter Joe 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nuff said TheRingess 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NeoJustin 01:21, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
Whenever I hear the word "blog", I reach for my Delete. Well, not really, but this article and the drama surrounding this discussion is not welcome. --Agamemnon2 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This guy is interesting enough to have his own page. He does not, however, qualify for his own paragraph in the "Blog" article. There is a link in the "See also" section. That should suffice. If the Wikipedia contributor "Vigdor" is the man himself, then vanity is at play. In any case, Vigdor and his fans should not keep changing the "Blog" article.User:Anthony717. 27 December 2005.
Delete - This doesn't belong here at all. --Caddberry 07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC) User's first contribution -- JJay 08:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity etc. Only mentions of being the creator of the first blog seem to be from his own writings. - Bobet 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep if he genuinely is the creator of the first blog and this can be verified; otherwise, Delete per above. --GNAA Staos 21:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not the "first blog"! This is an attempt to rewrite history so that V.S. can be the first in a category that wasn't invented yet. But as the article itself documents, there were periodically updated internet presences before there was a web, and there were sites, such as the NCSA What's New page, that had daily updates before Schreibman. While he no doubt had an early internet presence, you will not find any source substantiating that claim except his own. (It's really hard to keep my annoyance over what's happening in the Blog article from spilling over here.) rodii 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

((User Rodii makes a relevant inquiry, which certainly should be explored. In a genuine dialogue the first stage of idea generation requires that "Every person matters, so it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authentifity of each observer." In the second stage of idea synthesis, a model of influence and importance of each idea can be produced with the support of computer methodology such as Nominal Group Technique (NGT) or Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). The approach followed in Wikipedia is very destructive, inviting vicious attacks by opposing partisans. No sane and reasonable person would call this a "collaborative system." The facts that I have stated about my experience in Internet-based news are accurate. The documents that I have cited are true and accurate. My entire library is open to public inspection. You will see, for example, the first edition of the Federal Information News Syndicate: in the directory on News Columns, the first article on "Participatory Democracy in the Information Age," which FINS published on January 11, 1993. The search engines may not pick this up because the text of my early reports were not HTML. I am pursuaded that my claim of being the first "blog" is valid, albiet open to challenge, based in large part on my experience at the Periodical Press Gallery of the U.S. Congress during the period from 1993-1996. During those years no one at that venue had the least clue what Internet-based news reporting was. In fact, when I started reported via Internet, the Manager of the Gallery, David Holmes, held a meeting with his colleagues to consider terminating my Press Pass; they were all terribly concerned about what I was doing, which they thought must be illegal. These are all seasoned Journalists, completely mystified by the whole idea of Internet-based news. My news column was clearly a first among that leadership group! There certainlly were others using the Internet, many Universities, including, of course, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), but it would surprise me to learn that they thought of themselves as a "blog"! User:Vigdor 4:13, 28 December 2005 {UTC} User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 141.156.19.61 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - This is not your blog. This is an AfD page. You bloggers never learn. -- Femmina 09:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, one of the major points being made right now in Talk:Blog is that Vigdor is not a blogger. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep if those seven newspaper mentions are genuine. Those would constitute enough notability by my low standards. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now included above is a link to an image of The Washington Post story where critics can examine the top treatment given to the public service of Fins Information Age Library in August 1994. This article also conveys information about numerous Government Documents "Gophers" but does not include the NCSA site that brother Rodii mentioned as a possible contender for "1st Blogger" credit.[User:Vigdor]{UTC}

Keep: I have rewritten much of the article. Because of his legal struggles in Puerto Rico and his shunning by the congressional press, he is important enough to have his own article. He should not feature in the blog article, however. He didn't do anything truly original in blogging and he has never played well with others. Because of his vain efforts to vandalize the blog article, his contributions to Wikipedia should be viewed in terms of how those contributions can rightly be interpreted by others, whether or not that is in Schreibman's interest.

User:Anthony717. {UTC}

Comment: There is a difference of opinion about who is vandalizing whom. The "rewriting" that User Anthony refers to was not to correct any inaccuracy or prejudiuce but simply to continue a mad attack and smear mode of Wikipedia consensus building. While I am perfectly willing to abide by a consensus decision to delete my blog article and my bio I find it unethical and unacceptable to have an avowed enemy "rewrite" my work without my consent. Anthony is perfectly free to write up in his own article all of his criticism of my work. That will help distinguish what is intended. [User:Vigdor] User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 138.88.187.100 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- (1) He isn't an "avowed" enemy--at least, I have seen no such avowals. Can you point to any? (2) There is no reason to take him as an enemy at all: assume good faith. (3) It isn't your work--when you contribute to Wikipedia you give up ownership of your work; it is the community's to modify and improve. That you may not consider some other editor's changes an improvement is an issue to be worked out through discussion and a consensus process. The mindless reverts you've been doing--which, incidentally, have been wiping out the good work of other editors that has nothing to do with this dispute--are damaging to that process; try taking part instead. At the very least, try to learn how this project works; in particular, try reading this. The people you imagine to be your "enemies" have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, not some animus toward you. What are your motives? rodii 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment:I now have a fairly good idea of how this project works. It is a project derived from the mode of Groupthink governed by the values of slease, attack, and smear. Will this mode of association for the "World Encyclopedia" be sustained? A little consultation with the outsiders should tell us something about this question. [User:Vigdor] 09:00, 29 December 2005 {UTC}

Delete [Not noteworthy and obvious vanity] -- Aigis 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, non-notable -- Hosterweis 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, covered in the New York Times etc, making him someone users would want to be able to look up. Kappa 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - 1 NYT article does not make you notable. Renata3 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity on a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a blog (in particular, AfD is not a blog). I'm closing this, as it's been days and the "deletes" double the "keeps". I haven't protected the page against recreation, but I strongly advise Vigdor not to recreate it or edit it, since it's generally considered not a good practice to do that. Yes, even if Jimbo did it. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burrito Brava

One menu item at a restaurant we don't have a page for. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

delete. per nom.Obina 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - What a specific restaurant calls a specific menu item is not encyclopedia. What does this translate to from Spanish, "Brave Burrito"? That's not a real food name, just a brand name. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. And it translates to 'Brave Burrito', as Cyde said. Cchan199206 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, and I thought I didn't speak Spanish. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom VegaDark 10:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. rodii 16:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination...and, I don't think this article is going to help contribute to the sum of human knowledge...--ViolinGirl^♪ 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Very unsubtle advertising for the restaurant TheRingess 01:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, seems extremely unlikely that there will ever be enough material for a proper article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 07:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete but I think Taco Via may be a large enough chain in the U.S. to merit an article (ESkog)^(Talk) 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oilfight

Does not meet WP:WEB, barely exceeds WP:CSD for db-empty. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this article should not be deleted. It is informative. Other websites have their own wiki's as well for information on their sites. If this one is deleted. All must be deleted. [User: thewird] December 25th, 2005

It is my opinion that this should not be deleted for the reasons shown by thewird as well as the fact that KoC clone games are an important thing of note when discussing Kings of Chaos as well as MMO's in general, and that no other such KoC clones are represented in the wikipedia. [User: funkywizard] December 25th, 2005.

Delete per nom. If KoC clones are important when discussing KoC, then that deserves to go in the article. IMO, the single sentence mentioned there is enough to say that. If any of the clones are notable in themselves - by having a large userbase, some kind of media interest, or a high Alexa rating (142,000 is a long way from the WP:WEB guideline of 10,000). I would recommend anyone trying to save the article read the guideline in question, as well as the seciont on meatpuppets in Wikipedia:Sock Puppets, and maybe even tracking down an AfD that went in favour of a website's entry to see how an argument should be organised. Confusing Manifestation 08:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ifnord 16:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete gamecruft, no evidence it is either notable or ever will be. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertising. TheRingess 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - got popular through spaming. Guess what are they doing now? Renata3 15:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, because the previous nomination was earlier today. Please don't do that.--Sean|Bla ck 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on Christmas

I know it was nominated ~~a month ago~~ yesterday, but it's fallen apart even worse since then, and since the war on christmas implies, that there is, somewhere, an active war being faught against christmas, I find it odd, that not one single source can be found that shows the existance of this "war" -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. It was speedily kept earlier today, not last month. Sheesh. Flyboy Will 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. As per the last AfD's final decision. -Scm83x 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - I disagree entirely with this article's tone but that should be fixed through editing, not deletion. Thanks to various windbags on Fox News this term is, unfortunately, notable. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Why is this page listed in the log for Dec 19th? Flyboy Will 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment ~~hold on a sec~~ fixed, Dec 25^th -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep - This is absurd. The article makes it clear in the very first sentence that we're not claiming that a "war on Christmas" is actually taking place, simply that it is alleged to be happening. This article is being worked on heavily right now. Rather than wantonly re-AfDing it, a good-faith editor should try to help that process by making constructive suggestions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

comment Isn't it more absurd to have an article about something that all editors involved admit doesn't come remotely close to existing? -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - first of all, it's false that all editors involved agree with that. Read the talk page archive. Secondly, no. We have articles on many non-existent things that nevertheless have some cultural currency. Look at the list of examples in Moral panic, such as Poisoned candy and spermatorrhea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

question Why do we have articles on non-existant things?--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer - because things can exist as issues, topics of discussion, controversies, conspiracy theories, moral panics, etc, and can be talked about enough to become notable, without existing in the most literal, physical sense. Why have an article on Zeus? Why have an article on Bigfoot? Why have an article on luminiferous aether? I think the answers to those three are pretty obvious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please the entire category Category:Moral panics for a full list of all sorts of things that have articles in this similar vein. Also, my personal favorite poster-child example for AfDs of this type: Endor Holocaust. -Scm83x 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply, It exists. And I'm an Editor too!!! Chooserr

Speedy Keep, Already been voted on. Chooserr 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. I agree with GTBacchus and Cyde Weys. Edit the article into better shape, not eliminate it altogether. — Diamantina 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, [1] Notable topic, fix.--Tznkai 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and block user. -- JJay 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Few hours won't change opinions 68.63.88.28 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Black

Weak Delete Neither this page nor the self bio page linked to it are enough to convince me that this guy is notable. However, I could see myself being persuaded by facts not in my possession, which is why this is only a weak delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

delete Not notable per guidelines. More business promotion than vanity but whatever is NN.Obina 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, can't find anything to justify this. -- JJay 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per JJay's recommendation, for he is pretty dang inclusionist. Endomion 06:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom VegaDark 10:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete sub-stub for subject of no demonstrable significance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete using wikipedia for self promotion. TheRingess 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copious

This is better as a dictionary entry, enhancement to an encyclopedic entry is not realistic Note that I have reviewed the existing Wiktionary entry and somewhat enhanced it, but some of the content here is not verifiable in other sources, and hence is not included in the Wiktionary entry SailorfromNH 01:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef. Delete, unless something in there is really necessary for the entry already in Wiktionary. Confusing Manifestation 08:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the wiktionary entry is even better than this one. --Pboyd04 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WINAD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above. — TheKMan^talk 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Make into soft redirect?. Or delete --Dangherous 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a recreation of content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. If anyone disagees, take this to WP:DRV, please. DES ^(talk) 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AirLex Animations

NN, vanity, only google hits are on Wikipedia, was already deleted once. Qutezuce 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Article has undergone substantial change during the debate. -Splash^talk 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three-star restaurant

A pure dictdef. Was tagged for speedy, but foes have context. however it has no content beyond a dictdef. Delete. DES ^(talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This is not a "pure dictdef". The content has now been expanded to stub-grade. There is much potential for development. For one, the Michelin Guide, widely considered the top of the heap for high-end gastronomy, gives a very limited number of its highest, the three-star rating (I believe, currently only 50 in the world). So, there is a clear distinction between a "three-star restaurant" and any other star rating. A top chef in France recently committed suicide, with some news reports citing the rumored impending demotion of his restaurant from Michelin three-star to two-star as the reason. Some people take their (three) stars more seriously than simply a dictdef. --Tsavage 03:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Restaurant Rating System; otherwise delete. Flyboy Will 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Tsavage said everything I was going to say, only better. Endomion 04:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Tsavage. Well known, important concept, quite worthy of expansion. Smerdis of Tlön 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef. Sure, it's notable but I don't see what content beyond a definition will ever go here. Ifnord 16:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Keep this rewritten stub. Good job! Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- The content in the current stub has already gone beyond a dictionary definition. For example, the Michelin three-star rating is a big deal in the restaurant world; naming and discussing the impact of three stars on those restaurants is one obvious expansion direction. In any case, I suppose I should read up on whatever specific definition of dictdef you're using, but a phrase almost always seems like it would NOT be simply a dictdef, a phrase stands for something that usually can be described, and has a story. This is Wikipedia, the open, anyone-can-edit, interactive encyclopedia with tens of thousands of active contributors and nearly a million articles on the Web, I don't see why we're trying to limit this, rather than see if it can go somewhere? What is the point? If there is a chance for expansion, as demonstrated by the stub, give it a break!?! --Tsavage 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - You know, AfD is often a good way to improve articles. Myself, I have rewritten articles because I saw them listed on AfD and thought they deserved a chance. Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to Restaurant Ratings - this is the start of a worthwhile article that should include Michelin's three star system, AAA's and Mobil's five star system, Sagat's and Fodor's systems, and any other internationally-recognized system... and then have lists of the restaurants that made the top ranking in each of those systems. B.Wind 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a Move be beyond the scope of this particular AfD, since this stub is not equivalent to a restaurant ratings article? If that article were to be created, this content could possibly be merged there, and if so, this article then turned into a redirect. But as it is, while this article may be a future redirect or a subarticle of a currently non-existent restaurant ratings article, a Move doesn't seem to make sense. Or is this just another way of saying that "three-star restaurant" shouldn't have its own encyclopedia listing, i.e. it should be deleted? --Tsavage 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Is improving the article in question "beyond the scope" of an AfD? I say not --I contend that "three-star restaurant" without context is an improper title for what is clearly an article that will delineate exceptional restaurants. A Michelin guide's "three star restaurant" is supposedly superior to a "three star restaurant" as listed in a Mobil guide or the New York Times. A rename is definitely needed here to provide context for the search as well. The stub is good, but it cannot stand alone with the current name. It would be far better to change the name (with Wikipedia, that's a "move") and allow the expansion into a solid all-around article encompassing more than the Michelin guide (and if it's only supposed to cover Michelin three star restaurants, then a move to that page would be best). B.Wind 06:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I'm brand new to AfD so perhaps bear with me. I understand what you (and the other Move/Merge proponents) are suggesting. It sounds quite logical, and I understand the appeal of "let's just clean it all up in one bureacratic move." But I'm also interested in how procedures like this can work without contributing undue bias from relatively tiny minorities within the "community" (like a decision voted on by a handful of people). Flexible interpretation is great, but makes it all the more necessary that the "rules" are continually made clear. Here, if the orginal AfD was based on an article being no more than a dictdef, and that condition has satisfactorily been changed, is that not the end of that particular AfD? On one hand, we don't want to get mired down in endless bureaucratic detail and red tape, on the other, there should be quite clear scope for each procedure and process, else it becomes difficult to participate without getting mired in dealing with extraneous aspects. In this case, if three-star restaurant is (now) a proper stub, what are the grounds for AfD, and where are they stated? --Tsavage 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Question - In the AfD nomination, what does "foes have context" mean? --Tsavage 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article was just created and has already been nicely expanded. Give the users some time to write the article. SandBoxer 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep This article is a good stub right now, and looks like there is potential for growth, Four-star restaurant looks like it's spun off of this one, if signifigant development does not occur, merging would be called for to a new article encompassing rating restaurants, but there is not one to merge to yet, perhaps several stubs will combine in the future. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- And Four-star restaurant should be incorporated into Restaurant ratings as I explained above: the name itself provides no context. Ultimately, Three-star restaurant, Four-star restaurant, and Five-star restaurant will have to be merged and expanded together. The sooner it's done, the easier the transition to the united article will be. B.Wind 06:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That seems to be an arbitrary way of determining how content evolves on WP. I think that, despite all types of not-getting-the-concept entries, vandalism, stupidity, whatnot, any entry that someone took the time to make has potential value. I can understand deletion when no case whatsoever can be made for an article (but that would be rare). Here, I can easily think of circumstances: An American traveller goes to France, encounters a ton of conversation about "three-star restaurants" (referring to the distinct, rare Michelin award), and wants to know, "What's up with three-star restaurants?" Well, he could get redirected to and have to read through a restaurant article, or a restaurant guide article, a restaurant rating system article, a restaurant review article, a restaurant criticism article, or whatever. Or, if there was sufficient topic-specific information, he could go directly to a three-star restaurant article that would proceed to quickly and efficiently, in an encyclopedia-like manner, answer the question. Isn't that part of the boundless electronic Webness of WP, the potential for things to be made more accessible than before? (I realize I may be exaggerating for this particular instance, but it's really the principle...) --Tsavage 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the other appropriate article(s) into Restaurant ratings or something, until such point as it gets too big for one article (I don't expect that soon). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Move to Restaurant Ratings per B. Wind. This article realy needs to be expanded to include other well-known rating systems, but that cannot happen under the existing title. D e nni ☯ 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Restaurant ratings with a redirect. A "three-star restaurant" is of considerable significance if you know the speaker is referring to the Michelin Guide, or it's of jack-shit significance if you know he's referring to AAA's ratings, or it's of completely unknown significance if you don't know the intended context. I could post a website with three asterisks next to the McDonald's name, but it wouldn't confer widely notable prestige. Barno 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- How can you merge an article with something that doesn't exist? --Tsavage 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Create the new title, copy relevant content from the old article, and copy relevant content from other articles on restaurant ratings systems. Then delete-with-redirect the old articles. Not a logical contradiction in Wiki terms, regardless of how you might interpret the English. Barno 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - As I see it (and please correct me if I am misguided), had the article been originally written as the acceptable stub it is now, instead of as a dicdef, then there would have been no basis for submitting it as an AfD. Since that is in fact the current situation, how can a now-invalid AfD be used as justification for deciding how to title and organize articles in the general subject area of restaurant ratings...? In any case, all of that can be done as a matter of course in normal editing, so why is it being discussed here under AfD? --Tsavage 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      - There would have been no basis for submitting it as a dicdef, but there may still well have been those concerned that the topic was restrictive, since (as per much discussion abouve) that three-star rating is not the only one in existence. I have moved this article to Restaurant rating, where it can be updated to include other rating schemes. D e nni ☯ 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        OK, so it is as I thought. Once the article was turned into an (acceptable) stub, this AfD was closed. All the rest of the votes are essentially irrelevant, since there was no longer a basis for deletion, and what you did with the move and redirect could have been done by anyone, at any time... Thanks... --Tsavage 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grenta Crossing

Extremely nn, shows no results on Google spelled as is. However, when the Did you mean: "Gretna Crossing" link is clicked, there is nothing relevant there either. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. «LordViD» 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From the information given there is nothing to meet notability requirements. VegaDark 10:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TheRingess 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per creator. Not much to go by. Currently I haven't any media on the subject and do not have enough information.76

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ro Locastra

Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady and her Steel Tiger.

Character from non-notable stories. That series of stories previously had an article, but it went through AfD and was deleted. Delete. Joel7687 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nominated. -- JimR 06:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, obvious --Quarl 09:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mopping up. If a particular story doesn't get an article here, it's ridiculous to leave its characters' articles sitting around. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. VegaDark 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally I might be inclined to keep this, except that it's flat-out ridiculous for us to have a page on a character in a book without having a page on the book. Unless we undelete the book's article, delete. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense by banned vandal. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remington and the Rattlesnakes

I can find no proof that this is actually real. The picture is from American Dad. אריאל יהודה 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Going away as vandalism. We had a banned vandal by that name here and the user responsible for this tripe has been permanently banned. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armifulation

Neologism. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day אריאל יהודה 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as unverifiable patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 03:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Admitted neologism: "Armifulation -is the act of sponstaneously inventing a new word...the word armifulation was armifulated itself by Michael Worthman" Endomion 04:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I apologize. I am new, not only to wikipedia, but the internet as well. The term armifulation should not be considered entirely valid, although it is quite well know through several cities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Once the term can be properly cited in sevral reliable sources I hope it can be eligible for admission into the wiktionary. Right now, it's only documentation exists in the folklore archives at Memorial University of Newfoundland. I have also written an inqusitive letter to Funk and Wagnall's to see how a colloquialism can evolve into a universally accepted english word. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Sincerely, Mike Worthman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.146.204 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 December 2005
Delete, as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
delete per nom, obvious --Quarl 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as self-admitted neologism with zero google hits. Being a neologism isn't sufficient to speedy, however, and the article doesn't fit within our narrow criteria for patent nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- We need a new speedy-deletion category for this kind of obvious non-word --Quarl 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom —the preceding unsigned comment is by TheRingess (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WINAD and WP:V. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of movies set in Taylor, MI

A list of one. Do we need this? אריאל יהודה 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "Currently, there's 1 movie". Oh. Flyboy Will 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is this for real?!? - Lucky 6.9 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment and that one supposed Tom Hanks movie does not exist according to IMDB and google. Flyboy Will 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a complete hoax and I've called the user on it. Say bye-bye to our list. - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen R. Gyurke

per WP:NOT a memorial. I hate voting to delete this type of article. I hate nominating them more. Most of all I hate saying goodbye to this when people vote to keep entries for murderers. It's a clear rule that this has to go, but I'm really not proud of the standards we set. Durova 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, no claim of notability. Flyboy Will 03:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives" Endomion 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, not memorial. (The notability of murderers should challenged by 10 years test, not by splash they made in media today, btw.) Pavel Vozenilek 06:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Touching, but not notable. --Timecop 06:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also agree with the murderer thing. Reyk 11:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- JJay 00:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Definately sucks when we have to do this. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 02:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Reluctant speedy delete, no claim of notability (I don't like that policy, but it's policy). Also, worthwhile to note that it's a copyvio, unless Pennsylvania releases its works into the public domain. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mind matrix 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierson B. Reading

Too nn, with only 173 results on Google. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep if notability is mentioned in the article. Otherwise, delete. Logophile 07:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The linked biography asserts notability. --Quarl 09:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, as per Quarl. Google is an aid, not a final arbitrator of notability. BTW, the linked page claims that the bio is from Memorial & Biographical History of Northern California, The Lewis Publishing Co., 1891. Perhaps a useful PD source for other California-related 19th century topics. u p p l a n d 09:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Quarl. rodii 15:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep The Google test is not the be-all end-all test we sometimes take it to be. The real question is this - is someone who lost a statewide election notable? Honestly if it can't be expanded much past it's current form then I would have to say delete, but for now I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. --Bachrach44 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Modern candidates for election are voted "delete", we tell them that we'll keep them if they win. The same goes for historical candidates. Unless there is some further claim to notability, I can't see this being encyclopedic. Ifnord 16:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand to improve Wikipedia's historical coverage. Q Q 21:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 1891 bio provides information for expansion. Not just a candidate, but a pioneer and war figure -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough in my opinion, and probably verifiable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Expand if that source, and any others which can be found, provide evidence of being a notable pioneer or a notable war figure; delete otherwise. Having lost one election for governor doesn't put Mr. Reading over my bar for notability, unless there were something very significant about the campaign beyond most of its type. Barno 21:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has a biography in Memorial & Biographical History of Northern California. Since he was a politician, it would be a biography not a memorial. Kappa 05:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just as another example, there are a bunch of state historical markers describing his activities, and the town of Redding, California was for a time named after him. Seems like a notable figure in California history, and while the article's a substub right now, it's certainly got potential for expansion. -Colin Kimbrell 15:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brutality (band), Screams of Anguish and When the Sky Turns Black

Non-notable band, their own website indicates most albums only had 1000 copies made (though one album allegedly had 5000 cassettes created). Google doesn't turn up a whole lot either (at least in my limited research). I've included the two articles about their CDs in this AfD as well (if the band isn't notable, the albums definitely aren't). Thoughts? Locke Cole 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Non-notable bands can now be speedy deleted with {{db-band}}. I have added that tag to the page. Ifnord 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- True, but then you can't use {{db-repost}} if the article comes back. I notice it's been nuked, but hopefully people will still participate for the two album articles also up for deletion here. —Locke Cole 07:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Sure you can. Db-repost says that it applies to anything recreated which was "removed in accordance with the deletion policy." WP:CSD is part of our deletion policy, as I understand it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 09:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Weird, I could have swore I'd had a {{db-repost}} delete request denied because the article had only ever been deleted before via CSD (non-notable, as I recall, except with an individual not a band). Okay, will try that next time, good to know. =) —Locke Cole 09:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous to have albums by bands speedied as non-notable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete At Any Speed We'll get there eventually from non-notability, one way or another. The real debate now seems to be when rather than if. karmafist 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worth of chins

Appears to be nonsense, no online refs apart from copy of this article - SimonLyall 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Sounds pretty much like nonsense to me. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism, but LOL. Endomion 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and delete WorthChins.jpg --Quarl 09:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Quarl. An attempt to embarrass the person in the picture? rodii 15:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN This is way too funny to delete, BJAODN it. SandBoxer 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Way ahead of you, buddy: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Gone Wild#Worth of chins. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I hope that image isn't kept as part of BJAODN-GW. --Quarl 23:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete article and image, nonsense. --Muchness 17:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Cobra 10:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kwekwe High School

Definitely not notable; only 32 Google results. Delete. Scottmso 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If only it were three sentences. SorryGuy 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helps fight WP:BIAS such as that caused by applying google tests to schools in developing countries. Kappa 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no content that asserts notability. Presumably whoever started this article knew a little bit more about the high school ... if so, they should've put in some actual information. As it is now, it's not encyclopedic. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- It says it's a high school, how is that not an assertion of notability? Kappa 04:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - An assertion of notability generally involves more than saying something that's in the article title. Can I create a blank article Olmsted Island High School and say it should be kept because, well, it's a high school, and that's notable? There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of high schools on the planet. They don't all get to have a meaningless one sentence stub article merely stating their location. See Montgomery Blair High School for a good example of a high school article that does assert its notability. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - A blank article should be deleted for being blank, that's nothing to do with notability. If you attack article when they are new, they will never get a chance to grow, and we will be stuck forever with exactly one article in Category:schools in Zimbabwe. Kappa 05:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - This isn't personal. It's about adhering to the guidelines. The article simply does not assert its notability. From WP:SCHOOL:

If a school article meets one or more of the following criteria, it should be kept:

It has 3 or more full and complete sentences of verifiable, factual information that is not published solely by the school itself, or already included/better located on a district or city wiki article (ie: phone book information does not count toward the sentence total, that includes city, address, district, or phone number(s)). Such information can be included in the article but will not count toward the sentence total.
It has one or more interwiki links (e.g. another version already exists in another language)
It has one or more PD/GFDL/free pictures

If it meets none of these criteria, it should be merged into the appropriate district (or other higher-level article such as city or education in that city or region, if private), preserving all relevant content, and be redirected.

--Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's about following the (proposed) guideline, why don't you vote in accordance with it? Kappa 05:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just refer me to where I can vote on this guideline and I will do so. Thanks for the tip. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Still waiting ... or are you not going to refer me to it because you don't want to give me a chance to have my say? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- So we live in a world where schools in rich countries get articles because they have easy internet access, and schools in poor countries get deleted because they don't. Kappa 05:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - No, we live in a world where good articles get to stay and bad articles get deleted. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - The nomination and the above vote are based on lack of internet coverage, not article quality. Kappa 05:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Don't think you can speak for me, my vote actually is about article quality. Unless you're seriously trying to argue that the article in question is of "good" quality. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I wasn't talking about your vote, but deletion of perfectly adequate stubs about schools in developing countries also gives us an unpleasant "rich man's wikipedia" which I wouldn't feel comfortable contributing to. Kappa 05:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        And some people feel uncomfortable with allowing microstubs that make no attempt to assert notability. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I think I already mentioned that it says it's a high school, thus establishing notability. Kappa 06:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        And I think I already mentioned that it takes more to assert notability than merely saying that it is a highschool. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        As you probably know, many people think high schools are notable. The article says that this is a high school. Therefore the article asserts the notability of the topic. Kappa 06:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        That's a terribly circular argument, and is based on a very bad logical flaw. "Many people think X implies Y. Given X, then Y." Most people once thought the Sun orbited around the Earth, too. It didn't make them right. Just because people think being a school automatically implies notability doesn't actually make it so. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Should be more info available on this important high school. -- JJay 06:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Important" high school? You don't even know anything about it! If you actually have any information on this school, by all means, go ahead and add it to the article. Otherwise, don't make stuff up about it being "important" when you really don't know. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Are you saying it's not important? -- JJay 06:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. School in Zimbabwe? Notable? N* plz. --Timecop 06:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep article has only existed for about a week. It does currently have three sentences of seemingly factual information. On that, this AfD should be dropped. Nonetheless, the assertion that an article topic only has x amount of google hits surely should not be the standard for notability. Kappa clearly made a point regarding the role in internet access in relation to articles here. We have tons of articles on a significant amount of schools in the US, and the only thing notable about them is that they are schools in the US. If those schools can have articles for being a school, then clearly this school should be treated on an equal footing. Pepsidrinka 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa and Pepsidrinka. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa and Pepsidrinka; it may be impractical to apply the Google test to a subject which is located in a developing country, and this does appear to meet the current guidelines established in WP:SCH. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per above, meets WP:SCH --Quarl 09:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep and give systematic bias a bloody punch on the nose. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Keep high school articles per WP:SCH. -Rebelguys2 10:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that it is in Zimbabwe is not a valid reason for deleting it, and Google has its own systemic bias. Rhion 15:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as with American schools. Choalbaton 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Kwekwe so that information is kept, but not spread out for reasons of posturing. If we spent 1/100th of the effort we spend arguing about schools from a fundamental point of view on expanding African entries on Wikipedia, then Kwekwe might have more than five lines of info on it. Average Earthman 15:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think merging with Kwekwe is probably the best solution, and the one that is actually supported under WP:SCH: If it meets none of these criteria, it should be merged into the appropriate district (or other higher-level article such as city or education in that city or region, if private), preserving all relevant content, and be redirected. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since there are no other articles on typical schools in Zimbabwe, this information is useful to people other than just those interested in Kwekwe. Also having it separately in Category:Schools in Zimbabwe will encourage anyone examines that category to create articles on other schools in the country. Kappa 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - There seems to be a cabal of school inclusionists coming here from Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. I don't see much of a difference between this and a link on an external site trying to get everyone to come to an AfD page and influence the discussion. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that "school inclusionists" don't contribute to wikipedia and are not aware of its aims and policies? Oh and that reminds me...
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Kappa 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- - Contributions are not necessarily positive. Spreading information out in a thousand articles padded with ephemera is not useful if someone isn't after the ephemera. If that's your aim, well we've got that already, it's called the internet. We shouldn't be judging things on what theoretical position we have previously decided to hold, we should be judging things on what is most useful to a user of Wikipedia right now - not in some theoretical utopian future when a million other articles have been added. Of course, since I'm asking for a judgement call, judgement will differ. But I'm asking people to judge, not just say "It Has Been Written". Average Earthman 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Firstly please remember that the people of Zimbabwe, who overwhelmingly do not have the internet, are the most likely to want to read about this school. In a theoretical future when a million other articles have been added, and if a decent proportion of them are about schools in Zimbabwe, it would be less harmful to bury this info in the town article. Right now users need to be able to find it, and they need to know that more information like this is welcome. Kappa 00:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      - No, firstly you should consider that the population of Kwekwe are the most likely to want to read about the school, and such people are likely to have the intelligence to notice that Kwekwe High School is in Kwekwe. If you really think people would be unable to grasp such a concept, you could put in a redirect, which I believe is the standard move when information is merged. Average Earthman 12:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        When there are only two articles about schools in Zimbabwe, the most likely people to want to read either of them is people interested in schools in Zimbabwe in general, not those schools in particular. Kappa 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Kwekwe to retain information. colin99 19:58, 26 December 2005 (BST)
Keep per Kappa and Pepsidrinka. This is an article about the main high school in Zimbabwe's seventh biggest city. The article is only a week old: everything has to start somewhere. Humansdorpie 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per above. Jcuk 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, google is not suitable to determine notability of a school in a developing country. Give the article time to try and develop. Evil Eye 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCH as it has been sufficiently expanded to have it stand alone article. --Rob 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per reasons given above. — TheKMan^talk 10:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clear past precedent on high schools. Also I think Zimbabwean high schools are much rarer than European and American ones. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment "It says it's a high school, how is that not an assertion of notability?" Will we ever see the end of nonsense like this? There are indeed a few notable schools on the planet; to state that schools are notable merely for being schools ignores the fact that things are notable relative to other things. Denni ☯ 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Like the way that village are relative to other villages? Kappa 20:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is hardly nonsense, it is a completely sound and reasonable statement to make, in light of the fact that not one single verifiable high school article has been deleted as a result of the 350+ schools nominated for deletion during the past year. Learn to live in harmony. Silensor 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That not one single school has not been deleted speaks not at all to sensibility, but rather to the action of a cabal. I will allow you to get off your high horse before I remind you that I have not voted to delete a single school in the time there has been discussion ongoing at WP:SCH. Such comments as yours, however, could cause me to reconsider my position. Denni ☯ 01:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    - The fact that "not one single school has been deleted in a year" is not relevent to the discussion. Most normal people have run away from the school AfF's because they are a complete waste of time. The school inclusionists have won by attrition and apathy and more importantly because rationale people, such as Denni, are not fighting the inevitable and trying to find a working solution to schools. Such a solution would prevent schools coming to AFD in the first place. The fact that the some are still on a high horse speaks volumes to the goals of the project. When will the adversarial interactions be replaced by something constructive? Again, the inevitable, "all schools are kept" is NOT a consensus it is a default. David D. (Talk) 17:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      - "When will the adversarial interactions be replaced by something constructive?" - good question, I'm disappointed that we are exchanging words like "nonsense" and rehashing the same old arguments for the millionth time, I thought we could have moved on by now. Kappa 23:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I'm not sure where that feeling of disappointment might come from, Kappa. Your participation in the discussions at WP:SCH was more than a tad underwhelming. Why do you suppose we're rehashing the same old arguments? I propose it is because the group of inclusionists seeking to keep school articles has not (with the notable exception of Hipocrite) made any effort whatsoever to compromise on school articles. D e nni ☯ 00:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I regard merges as a form of compromise, I thought you did too. Kappa 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        I do also. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't yet seen you vote to merge. D e nni ☯ 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        To be fair that is because Kappa actually does clean up the articles that come through Afd and makes them into fairly decent stubs. However, kappa can't do every school article himself. Merge without losing information is a fine compromise and one that would easily stop AFD nominations. David D. (Talk) 19:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the clear past precedent on high schools (see above). Silensor 20:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep High Schools --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Mmmrph I give up. The cabal wins again. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- TINC! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That's exactly what a cabalist would say. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    - And that is exactly what the OMFGTHERESAFRIGGINGCABALOUTTOGETME-ists would offer as an excuse. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
keep and please help stop systemic biases here Yuckfoo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- No they aren't. But this one is and meets WP:SCH so keep.Gateman1997 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Countering systemic bias. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Rodham

proposed delete: extremely minor character in a Wing Commander (computer game) novel (IE 2nd-tier canon); shows up the once and then is never mentioned again. Fancruft, in other words. Shall we? Marblespire 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Zzzzz 11:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per nom SailorfromNH 21:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete I say we merge the content into List of Wing Commander characters then delete. --Pboyd04 02:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. Wing Commander is a large fictional universe, and the Terran Confederation is a major force in it. I think the president of Confed passes WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some fan could merge some useful stuff to say Terran Confederation. Renata3 15:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Quinson

proposed delete: extremely minor character in a Wing Commander (computer game) novel (IE 2nd-tier canon); shows up the once and then is never mentioned again. Fancruft, in other words. Shall we? Marblespire 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Zzzzz 11:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete I say we merge the content into List of Wing Commander characters then delete. --Pboyd04 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with Merge and delete for all the reasons given. --Bhadani 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep or merge with another article than List of Wing Commander characters (which does not appear to accomodate character descriptions). Minor character but in a major fictional universe, so it passes WP:FICT. Note that merge and delete is a violation of GFDL, so if you want to merge, you have to leave a redirect behind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Hayes

Delete. Likely vanity page; none of the claims in the article can be independently verified. Can't even find "Adam's Corner" at the St Helens Reporter nor any mention of Ordinary Lives, his "most successful" film. AxelBoldt 04:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Timecop 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom +/- hoax. Ifnord 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Pboyd04 02:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - -Dr Haggis - Talk 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep because the nomination was withdrawn. Mind matrix 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collection plate

This page is a simple, one-sentence dictionary definition and I really don't see any possibilities for further improvement. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I added some stuff, it could be a modest but good article. Endomion 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I would have said we should delete it, but Endomion's additions made it into a decent article. Keep it. User:VanillaX 23:53 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delist from AfD now. Pavel Vozenilek 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Per Endomion. -- JJay 06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination - The article is sufficiently good now, I must admit, I didn't think this could be expanded to an encyclopedia article, but I was wrong. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hudson

Delete. Likely vanity page. None of the claims made can be independently verified. His band "Magpie Solution" is not known by Google. AxelBoldt 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and Adam Hayes. --Timecop 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio --Quarl 09:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Sports Fantasy NBA

Most of this article is incorrect (it bases its material on Yahoo!'s default settings, which can be changed by league commissioners.) It reads as a "how to play" rather than an article on the service. Moreover, we don't have an article on Yahoo! Sports, or on Yahoo! Fantasy Sports, so no reason to merge the little that's correct. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as nominator and per above. Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 04:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 09:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qasimate

This is a page with just a definition, IMO should be on Wikitionary. Delete. Scottmso 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary doesn't take words that do not exist. Uncle G 06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't even cite sources or anything, it could easily all be made up. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment There is one link for this word, http://www.mauspfeil.net/Qasimate.html Endomion 05:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Read to the very bottom of that page. Uncle G 06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that's just sad. Delete Endomion 06:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is a definition of a word that does not exist. Delete. Uncle G 06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Non-existent word, single google hit for unrelated subject. --Timecop 06:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please quote the exact wording of the policy that gives us permission to speedy delete dictionary definitions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy delete~~ per Timecop.--Quarl 09:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please quote the exact wording of the policy that gives us permission to speedy delete dictionary definitions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Delete - excuse me, you're right, MarkGallagher. --Quarl 11:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I think we need a new speedy-deletion rule for obviously made-up words (neoneologisms?). --Quarl 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not transwiki. Made-up word. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as word doesn't exist. VegaDark 11:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support Local Trade

Delete. Cannot confirm any of the claims made; if it's true then it's not notable. AxelBoldt 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Anti-WalMart group that has disbanded according to the article, probably due to lack of interest. Endomion 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above --Quarl 09:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough. VegaDark 10:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, whichever way you spin it. -Splash^talk 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha (Romancing SaGa)

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, wikipedia is not paper, and the characters are better organized on separate pages. Anyway if you want to merge them, you don't need to bring them to AFD. Kappa 05:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and delete are not mutually exclusive. I don't think the page Aisha (Romancing SaGa) should exist, therefore I am in favor of its deletion. At the same time I'm not against the content from the page being merged back into the article on the game. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - So you want to drag us through an AFD just get rid of a redirect from a title that has no conceivable other use? Kappa 05:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - If information is merged, then it is mutually exclusive with a delete. We would need to keep a redirect to preserve the page history. (ESkog)^(Talk) 09:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Alright, then merge and redirect. Whatever. This thing just doesn't need its own section. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Flyboy Will 09:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Dangerous-Boy 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Renata3 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howch e ng {chat} 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albert (Romancing SaGa)

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Seems to be a showcase for fan art (i.e. original research), thus non-verifiable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if you don't think it deserves its own page, discuss merging on the talk page. Kappa 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Flyboy Will 09:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all per flyboy Zzzzz 11:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Dangerous-Boy 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Renata3 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Flyboy Will. - Liontamer 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howch e ng {chat} 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gray (Romancing SaGa)

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Seems to be a showcase for fan art (i.e. original research), thus non-verifiable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 05:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Flyboy Will 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa, in a format like the characters on the SaGa Frontier page. The article isn't big enough yet to need a seperate page for Romancing SaGa characters. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. There is plenty of space there. Renata3 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howch e ng {chat} 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minstrel (Romancing SaGa)

This is an insignificant character in what appears to be a pretty non-notable video game. IMO this doesn't merit its own article; most other "secondary characters" (according to Romancing SaGa) don't have their own article and they probably shouldn't. Delete. Scottmso 04:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Romancing SaGa. The page isn't so long right now that it can't accomodate a few character bios. At the most these character bios could be consolidated into the page Romancing SaGa characters. As for this being a non-notable videogame ... no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. This game is made by Square-Enix, of both Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest fame. This game wasn't marketed extensively in America like the others but I assure you it's big in Japan. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Flyboy Will 09:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Renata3 15:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howch e ng {chat} 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neidhart (Romancing SaGa)

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD is not "Articles for Merging". If users feel an article should be merged instead of deleted, it's a perfectly valid option; but the nominator should not be bunging it on AfD for the purposes of gaining support for a merge. AfD is congested enough as it is, and that's what talkpages are for. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if you don't think it deserves it's own page, discuss merging on the talk page. Kappa 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- So you seriously believe that a minor character in a videogame deserves its own article to itself? Because that's the only possible conclusion one can come to with that "keep" vote. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - The conclusion I came to was that Kappa has no objection to merging, but doesn't want to see the information deleted. This is why we don't use AfD purely for merges. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge all into Romancing SaGa. Renata3 15:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Renata3. - Liontamer 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comrade Dr. Edward Ikem Okeke

No sources, bad title, no significant Google hits. Non-notable. —Sesel 05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If there were any Google hits at all, I'd vote keep and cleanup, but there is nothing for "Edward Ikem Okeke" or "Edward Okeke". Edward Okeke without quotes brings up nothing meaningful. Delete unless sourced (at which point, rename). User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep This site [2] calls him a prominent native of Anambra. Endomion 06:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not its own source. Again, read to the bottom of the page. Uncle G 07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Change vote to Delete per Uncle G (this is starting to piss me off). Endomion 12:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - There are a lot of Wikipedia mirrors Out There. ☺ Uncle G 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ohshit, this is the guy that keeps sending me nigerian spam offering to send me $20,000,000 (TWENTY MILLION U.S. DOLLARS). --Timecop 06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- No fair, I got dibs on that, I saw him first. Flyboy Will 09:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ~~Since Endomion has found a web reference, which does show up on Google, there is verification.~~ Could be moved to Edward Ikem Okeke though (there seem to be two separate people called Edward Okeke findable via Google as well as this person). -- JimR 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- The purported "web reference" is nothing of the sort. Please read to the bottom of the page. Uncle G 07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'd still like to see a bit of caution on deleting a page about a (possible) African figure, said to have died before WWW was widespread, on the grounds that he doesn't have Google references. At least the suggestion of vanity seems unlikely to me. -- JimR 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because this comment I'm typing right here says so. You'll be able to find it on google soon enough. Flyboy Will 09:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

Delete. Unreferenced and so far unverified. Probably vanity or possibly a hoax. But there seems to be other Okekes of interest. Somebody should write an article on the "popular Prophet Eddy Nawgu (Edwin Okeke) in Onitsha", whom I stumbled over while googling (see [3]). u p p l a n d 10:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia sourcing Wikipedia! There's a new one... FCYTravis 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability; suggest that identical content at Okeke is also deleted. Humansdorpie 22:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Burden of proof falls on those who want to delete. You got to do better than an english-language google search before saying this guy doesn't exist or is "insignificant". Anyone here a specialist on Africa that can shed light? --MateoP 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - The burden of proof is on the article's writer to provide verifiable sources supporting his or her addition. If none can be found, articles which are unverifiable may be deleted by consensus. As there are no verifiable sources around for this article, deletion is perfectly acceptable. <cliche>In the wake of Seigenthaler</cliche> we're really cracking down on verifiability. FCYTravis 09:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - there are thousands of stubs on Wikipedia, hardly any include sources. People write stubs to get rid of read links, and they don't very often do any research into writing a couple of sentences. Are you in favor of deleting all non-sourced stubs? At least be consistent, if that's you're position. I think the burden of proof needs to fall on deletion. Do actual research beyond google search to see about this guy. You're assuming he either doesn't exist or isn't important. If he was a politician and trade union leader of Nigeria then he is certainly important enough to be included. --MateoP 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree. Okeke does not appear in the Africa Centre database of 11,000 prominent African people, and does not appear in the 1994 African Biographical Dictionary (Brockman, Norbert C. An African Biographical Dictionary; (Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO, 1994)). Humansdorpie 15:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment - Only 11,000 African people are allowed on Wikipedia? Since when? Is this true of other places too? Only 11,000 Canadians, and 11,000 Japanese people? --MateoP 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Mr. Okeke is also not listed in the Historical Dictionary of Nigeria. —Sesel 18:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per MateoP. --Hansnesse 08:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - A further search of the contributions made by 68.49.232.178, the creating author, reveals Okeke with the same infomation, and more interestingly, an old edit] of the Nnewi page (a city) in which the same author indicates E.I. Okeke is was (i) former deputy president of the People's Redemption Party (a minor polical party with one seat) and (ii) on the board of directors of the University of Sokoto. Further investigation of the University of Sokoto reveals it is appearently not a legitmate university (see University of Nigeria, to which it is affiliated: Special seminar with the Prince of Nigeria on how to transfer $30 Million to the US or any other country without any traces. (from bottom of page)). It is possible that the post was in error, and the real E.I. Okeke was affiliated with something real, but it is looking less likely. Changing my recommedation to delete. --Hansnesse 19:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment While http://universityofnigeria.com/ is certainly a spoof website, this does not mean that the University of Sokoto is not legitimate. For confirmation that this university did exist, and continues to do so under the new name Usmanu Danfodiyo University which it took on in 1988, see [4] under Usmanu. -- JimR 04:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I stand corrected. --Hansnesse 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not verifiable notability. Renata3 15:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Asia

There is absolutely nothing that unifies all the cultures of the Asian continent. One could argue that geography is something that could be considered a link between the numerous (and often times unrelated) cultures of Asia, but the fact of the matter is that very few people who live west of Pakistan consider themselves to be Asian. The average Israeli or Iraqi will not claim to be Asian. At best this page should redirect to other, more specific, cultural articles (i.e. Cultures of East Asia, Cultures of Southeast Asia, Cultures of Central Asia ect...}. Matters are made even worse since this article is now Collaboration of the Week, too much conflicting useless information will be added, causing this article to be one of the worst on Wikipedia.

Keep. Should allow collab. of week to finish before having an AfD on this one. Youngamerican 05:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - This seems to be a bad-faith nomination to me. Someone sees it on Collaboration of the Week and decides to axe it. The point of Collaboration of the Week is to make an article better, not delete it. And as long as this AfD stays on the article it's going to discourage edits, thus negating the effect of the CotW. Thus I am voting Speedy Keep to allow the CotW to go back into effect as soon as possible. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporomandibular Repositioning and Physiological Performance

Original Research, Essay Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Unverified. -- Natalinasmpf 06:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 09:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination Madman 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Cooper

Delete. I always feel sad about nominating this type of article. Yet another victim of a self-publishing scam, in this case of the American Poet Society. No other claims to notability. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. But maybe American Poet Society deserves an article? --Quarl 08:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Not notable enough with information given. VegaDark 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - he's not even 20. When gets older and more popular - resurect. Renata3 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted under CSD-A7. Thank goodness for the recent change in CSD policy that allows for groups! enochlau (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American National Front

Can't find anything on this organization or its principals on Google. Seems like it's only notable if you go to high school with these people Daniel Case 06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: As post below suggests, and as a review of user's edit history will confirm, he is himself the "Austin Post" in the article. He admits to previous a7 violations. Daniel Case 06:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic bias

Actually, they are known in my area and I know many of the members. It is also well known across several Internet forums. The founders of this movement are said to spend all of their time talking politics and spreading their message. They are all over the Internet, though for some reason their leader is always changing the name.

Some names he has called his party or group:

Progressive Union Party

Progressive Party

Populist Party

American Nationalist Party

Youth For America

Conservative Socialists of America

Fascist Party

-Axismaster, 1:29pm

This was already speedied once because it was totally unverifiable. Any objections to not giving this tripe its five days of fame? - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as previously deleted. Also, a handful of high school students from Holland, Michgan is not a Front. Auf Wiedersehen und Viel Glück. Flyboy Will 08:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete --Quarl 08:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy nn-club tag added Zzzzz 11:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense, and an apparent attack on this company. Ral315 (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

After concerns that this nomination was tainted by GNAA votes, I've relisted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOJO Works 2. All the votes as below have been copied to the new entry, but may or may not be counted by the closing admin. Ral315 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOJO Works

Non-notable advertising corporation, what makes them any different from 3000 other internet advertising businesses? Timecop 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete please -- Femmina 06:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete We really need to get rid of these non-notable stub articles. There are way too many. Cptchipjew 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, no notability claimed. Flyboy Will 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. In addition the links to companies are pipe links to spam and spyware. --Quarl 08:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above VegaDark 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pelf

Dicdef, unexpandable delete GTBacchus^(talk) 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please put more effort into your nominations. In fact, consider writing a nomination instead of leaping straight towards the heady thrill of voting to delete that sucker. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please consider checking the history before jumping straight towards the heady thrill of criticizing the wrong person. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I apologise. You did indeed write a nomination! I checked the history to see if someone else might have created the article, but not to see if another user might have changed your edit. My objection to nominations that don't look like nominations stands, but my criticism of you obviously can't. Silly me. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has an entry for this, now we can Delete the article. --Timecop 06:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's already on Wiktionary and looks to be unexpandable (I hesitate to say "per nom", because there wasn't one). Perhaps replaced with a soft redirect might be appropriate? Probably just worth deleting outright. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - There was a valid nomination (albeit not a wordy one - not much to say here), then it was changed by User:Timecop. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef, as per nomination. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Librarians (band)

While page is nicely formatted, band seems utterly non-notable. They only formed a year ago, have a single independently-released EP, and Googling for "The Librarians" + "Morgantown" returns only a handful of pertinent hits.

Delete. jglc | t | c 06:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. --Timecop 07:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. --Quarl 08:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Renata3 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Wu (musician)

It appears that this is a non-notable entry, as I am only able to muster 19 hits on Google for this musician. [5] It should probably be deleted, but please let me know if you disagree. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete A7 - non-notable autobiographical vanity. 2 google hits for "david wu by request", both on myspace. --Quarl 08:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From what I can tell, the musician does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines for Notability (music) or Notability (people). — TheKMan^talk 10:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Renata3 15:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achillean

The article doesn't appear to have enough content to make it worthwhile as an encyclopedia entry, but it had more content in the past (now on the talk page). It appears to have been nominated in the past as a redirect for deletion, bizzarely, since it has never been a redirect. An anon removed the rfd template. User:Niteowlneils commented almost a year ago that there were 925 Google hits on the term, not all of them relevent. I see 14 Google hits for "Achillean Group". Delete.-gadfium 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

{{rfd}} is the tag used on at least one other project. Sometimes editors forget which tags are used on which projects. Uncle G 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ifnord 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Just Delete Renata3 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice of the Borg

This doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps a merge into Star Trek: First Contact. Delete, JHMM13 (T | C) 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, too trivial, we don't have articles for "man on bus" or "newspaper salesman" for other movies. -Drdisque 07:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Star Trek: First Contact, according to the guidelines in WP:FICT. Far too short and trivial for a seperate article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ delete (it's already tagged as speedy now) --Quarl 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that Borg already says 'The actor playing the role of "Voice of the Borg" in this film is Jeff Coopwood', although I don't think that's the right grammar - "Voice of the Borg" is not an actual character. Nothing to merge --Quarl 12:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete Jeff Coopwood wrote this about himself. -- Perfecto 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- User:Jcoop, who created this and Jeff Coopwood, left me a message saying he's not him, so please disregard the last claim (but not the vote, see below) as you see fit. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Star Trek: First Contact JoJan 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Hmm, this is interesting. On one hand the "voice" of something is definitely not deserving of an article. On the other, since the Borg is a hive mind, the "Voice of the Borg" is the closest anyone can get to describe the collective Borg consciousness... which is, I think, notable. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- No. Borg describes the "collective Borg consciousness", not this. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: after delete, redirect to Borg --Quarl 10:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There's an assertion of notability there (he's the Famous Voice of the Borg!), so I don't see how it can/should be speedied. A merge and redirect seems to me to be the most appropriate action here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedied because it's a sub-stub: what else can be added to the article? Speedied because there is no such topic as "Voice of the Borg". Let's likewise create "Voice of Kermit" (saying it's Jim Henson), and "Voice of Bart Simpson" (saying it's Nancy Cartwright) since the two are more encyclopedic than this. I agree with Quarl, there's nothing to merge. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - You may find it useful to re-read WP:CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mark, it's between A1, A3 and A7, unless I'm mistaken. -- Perfecto 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Essexmutant 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, anyone who performs the voice acting of a world-famous voice, like Borg or Dalek deserve to be covered somewhere, regardless of who wrote the entry. If it's merged, the fact it's a substub will be irrelevant. -- Mgm|^(talk) 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Quarl - the Borg article already contains all the info from this article, nothing to merge. Tufflaw 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete nothing to merge. Renata3 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge it as suggested --TimPope 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. nn. Incognito 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skye Thorstenson and The Elk Hotel

First of all, see Gunk Land -- Gunk land is an obvious hoax.

Skye Thorstenson and Elk Hotel, which is "still in production, scheduled for release 2005", are listed on IMDb, but I'm starting to doubt whether IMDb is reliable in this instance, since Skye Thorstenson and/or his collaborators like to submit hoaxes to Internet websites.

Anyway, even if it was actually "released", it still isn't notable just because there is an IMDb entry for it. The first google hit for "elk hotel" (in quotes) is a consumer review for Best Western Mountain Lodge at Banner Elk. The only related hits are Thorstenson's website and Wikipedia.

I strongly believe the following users are Skye Thorstenson and/or his collaborators. The domain gunkland.com is registered to Skye Thorstenson (since I stated this on afd/Gunk_Land, he has hidden the whois data via domainsbyproxy.com). He/they have vandalized AFD pages: alterning my signed comments, signing incorrect usernames, removing 'disputed' tags, obvious lying ("thanks for the lead to IMDB" even though he already wrote a misleading link to IMDB).

69.107.101.25 (talk · contribs)
69.107.103.250 (talk · contribs)
69.107.118.193 (talk · contribs)
69.107.132.236 (talk · contribs) (vandalized AFD pages)
Aidan_ny (talk · contribs) (created Gunk Land, same user as 69.107.132.236)
Lostheadfactory (talk · contribs) (Thorstenson's website is lostheadfactory.com)

These users are the sole non-cleanup editors of Skye Thorstenson, The Elk Hotel, Gunk Land. (Gunk Land has been deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2005-12-30 23:56Z)

If indeed they are Thorstenson, these articles also violate WP:AUTO.

The meta tags for the gunkland.com webpage were "The Elk Hotel, Elk Hotel, theelkhotel, Film, Opera, San Francisco, Skye Thorstenson, Daniel Paul Bates, Veronica Klaus, Mara Luthane" until Thorstenson saw that comment and changed it.

Skye Thorstenson is now mostly a social commentary revealing the motive for creating hoaxes.

Mister Skye, if you're reading this, please try your hoaxes outside of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Delete --Quarl 08:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. P.S. The sockpuppets of the hoax author can be identifieid by atrocious overuse of smart-sounding adjectives in his volumptious comments. Flyboy Will 08:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per nomination. - squibix 14:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and submit this to WP:AN/I so they can keep on alert for these vandals. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment please refer to Gunk land articles for deletion as for The Elk Hotel - I didn't add it to this site - but it is how i found this site via google. -- lostheadfactory 16:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't add the elk hotel page - i was quite flattered someone did. I'm surprised you can't verify this via IP address imprint. I did add my bio info page as i figured it was fine since someone added a page with my film on it (at the time i wasn't aware of vanity posts). & Thank you for the apology quarl. Internet anonymity does bring out uncivil social interactions in people and everyone is susceptable to it. I was sincerely trying to be good natured and foolish with my gunk article. --lostheadfactory 23:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Based on the contribution history and your history of lying in AFDs I still think you created those articles. --Quarl 23:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - The two articles Skye Thorstenson and The Elk Hotel were created by the same person, at least someone using the same computer -- admitting creating Skye Thorstenson is also admitting creating The Elk Hotel. It's not important whether you created them though; what's important is whether Skye Thorstenson is important. If your articles end up being deleted, you're welcome to keep them on your user page. --Quarl 20:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I was taken in by the hoax (because of the IMDB entry) and worked on wikifying the article. Delete. Bluewave 11:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DTompkins 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This stub is too small, and it constitutes as a vanity page. --MolloyWatt 20:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Vearrier

Non-notable autobiographical vanity Malcolm Morley 07:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Quarl 08:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Pboyd04 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep author is a notible vet in the history of video game production. ===Mark Vearrier===
- Comment Please provide references for this claim. If you are notable (sp) then that is great! --Malcolm Morley 08:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well follow the links to MobyGames. I have been helping create computer games that define industry standards for over 15 years now. Follow this link to see what "notable" projects I am involved with currently. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/games/2005-10-05-health-care-games_x.htm

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed and Dangerous (Charmed Episode)

From WP:PNT, been there since December 10. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what language (Slavic?). Came across it. Doesn't look like a major article, but maybe someone can translate it. Sjavitt84 21:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This looks like Serbian, and it seems to me that it may be just what the title says... To me, this would not be encyclopeadic by definition (i.e. I'd speedy it)... but apparently there are others who won't necessarily share my opinion :) -- there's a link to it from List of Charmed episodes. Perhaps others would have a better suggestion - Introvert ^talk 06:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like its cut-an-paste from the Zagreb TV guide. I suspect copyvio but can't find it either. I vote to let it die in VfD. --Diderot 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally fine with me. Thanks! - Introvert ^talk 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

its srbian ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.149.38 (talk • contribs)

(From nominator) ~~Delete~~ Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Change my vote to: keep as rewritten. Nice job. Too bad nobody did this translation while it was still on WP:PNT, that would have saved us all the overhead of an AfD... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's notable, just needs to be written in English. I guess I'll do it.Ifnord 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Has been rescued, and looks fine. Good work. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 20:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep now translated. QQ 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't speak Serbian. I wrote it from scratch. ;) Ifnord 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon ballooning

Looks like a hoax. No references or sources. Somewhat funny material, but probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Would've speedied it, but couldn't think how to classify it except as nonsense.TheRingess 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. 22 non-relevant hits for "dragon ballooning". --Quarl 08:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep should not be deleted, perhaps the person above should try the game before he judges it- i have and will certainly be playing again. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 210.55.43.179 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just a thought, perhaps there is a distinction between judging something and judging an article about something. Hmmm....? TheRingess 19:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. Google gives 22 results for "dragon ballooning", all for a company by that name, and 0 for mongolian "patting circle". Also, Blue Pictsie and Snitch are obvious references to Terry Pratchett's Nac Mac Feegle and, of course, the thing in the game in the book by that woman about that boy, respectively. Interesting too that User:Jnimmo uploaded a picture of a Scotsman under the filename Irishman.jpg. Confusing Manifestation 09:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as hoax, but five points for the chuckles. Endomion 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Though I agree with Endomion - it's funny. I like the Ooompa-Loompa looking guy. Hmmm. Where is it they send good joke articles? BJADO or some other such acronym? Ifnord 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Well I am a regular player of this game, played it last night and had a great time. We did end up popping our blue baloon when a pot plant bottom fell on it (which was exciting as we havnt had that happen in a game before) but we blew up a red one and carried on. I do not think it should be deleted. I think it is too bad if it was a picture of a scotsman and called irishman, the user obvously must have thought that some pictures were needed and I believe it makes the page look more interesting. It is a great explanation of the game for new players to the game but misses out some great moves for more experienced players. I was interested in the origins of the game but I cannot say I have heard them before.219.89.154.156 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Finally someone has put up balloon patting, I have been meaning to put it up but for some time but never got around to explaining it. It- has run in the family for years. Although at the Greymouth Balloon Patting club I attend we use a Red balloon instead of the blue balloon - and just call it the red indian... Have reworded some of the rules for ease of use.. Yes, there are some missing I will add them in sometime, and some I havn't heard of. But gives you the general idea of the game. Scotsman/irishman - easy mistake to make. --Roygbiv boy 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Metacomment: User's only edits are to this AFD; he also edited the comment by User:210.55.43.179 to mark it as "Keep" --Quarl 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Re:Metacomment: I edited the layout of the comment - not the content of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.154.156 (talk • contribs)
Keep I'm a clumsy kinda guy, but a good game of dragon ballooning really gets me going. It's time the sport gets the respect it deserves. Great in casual play. Jeremy Nimmo 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Metacomment: Obviously the above anonymous users are sock puppets of the article creator. Jeremy Nimmo, are you the same person as the article creator, User:Jnimmo ? Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you. --Quarl 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Re:Metacomment: I honestly do not know the anonymous users that posted, And no, I am James Nimmo - unsure if I know Jeremy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnimmo (talk • contribs)
- Delete, umm, given the fact that Jeremy Nimmo's userpage seems to indicate he is, in fact, deader than Paris Hilton's brain, I cannot see how he can be voting here. --Agamemnon2 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Especially since the article on Jeremy Nimmo was already deleted, I think that argues his case better than any of us could. Confusing Manifestation 11:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Come on, just because I cited the article whose appearance on my paranoid google alerts filter brought me to wikipedia, on my user page, doesn't mean I'm a hoaxer.Jeremy Nimmo 08:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      - OK, on further examination I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt there. Doesn't change my vote on this, though. Confusing Manifestation 12:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clear Hoax. (are we outnumbered by hoaxers over holidays?)Obina 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Clearly. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 02:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN Zunaid 12:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Renesis13 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. -- JimR 05:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pneumatic trail

From WP:PNT, been there since December 10. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Found this loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Don't know what language. Jamie 10:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Turkish. Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkish, according to xrce. — TheKMan^talk 07:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lastiğin zeminle temasta olduğu nokta ile yanal kuvvetin etki ettiği nokta arasındaki mesafeye ingilizce literatürde pneumatic trail ( pnömatik mesafe ) denilmektedir.:kes2005:.

Yes, it's Turkish. A rather odd sentence to be floating around in the middle of nowhere though! The sentence is a turkish definition of what we apparently call a 'pneumatic trail' in English -- although, in the parenthesis in Turkish it says "pneumatic distance" to be exact, but it sounds like essentially the same term. The translation of the whole thing is: "The distance between the point at which the tire makes contact with the ground and the point of sideways pull/impact is called pneumatic trail in English literature."

'yanal kuvvet' translated literally means 'sideways pull/force/impact', but in the context of the sentence, I'm quite sure it actually means traction/adhesive friction (you know, such as the tire grip and centripetal force when you're driving on a bend in the road for example). I mean, I'm no automotive engineer and I'm a girl =), but that’s definitely what it should mean. And they also probably meant 'in English' not 'in English literature'!

Still don't know why that sentence would be floating around aimlessly like that though.

--UMich05 09:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nominator abstains. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Caster angle --Quarl 08:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redirect don't seem right. Renata3 15:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael S. Heiser

User:71.112.65.188 attempted to nominate this article for deletion. I'm just fixing the nomination; no vote on my part yet. Metropolitan90 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep this guy has been published several times from an Amazon search and turned up a few thousand google hits. --Pboyd04 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (I am the one who wrote this article. If that was truly Mr. Heiser, whom I owe great repsect towards, then right away!). --User:69.248.43.27 03:24, 27 December 2005.

Let me get this straight - You want an article you wrote to be deleted? Why? If there is a problem with it, why not rewrite it? --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete: vanity. CDThieme 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Barista | a/k/a マイケル |

please keep, incredibly interesting 2/jan 06 T/C 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tolithia

It's a set of un-wikified definitions. Delete, Cleanup, and Move to Wiktionary_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 08:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Expand -- A fictional character is not so uninteresting a name as to merely be the subject of a dictionary: the article is a rough equivalent to three stub articles. --Mysidia (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- ... except that this article is an insider joke article aimed at Tolithia Kornweibel, marketing manager for Esurance, as I discovered when doing the research to try to turn this article into a disambiguation. The "one of the louder Kornweibels" entry gives this away to people in the know. Eliminating that and the "It means 'young girl'." (which is a useless definition) entry leaves just two potential stub articles. But the minor character in Prince of Tides is Tolitha Wingo, not Tolithia, who would be disambiguated at Wingo not here; and I can find no mention of either a Tolithia or a Tolitha being resurrected in any Bible translation that I have so far been able to search. That leaves nothing at all. Delete. Uncle G 09:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - After the edit conflict, I see that Flyboy Will has independently come to the same conclusion. ☺ Uncle G 09:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. First of all, there's only 96 google hits for "Tolithia" altogether, of any kind. On a Tolithia with Jesus, there are no hits at all, and on a Tolitha, supposedly a more common spelling, there are only 86 hits. And most importantly, something begins to smell fishy as we get to the bottom. The article says a Tolithia is a louder type of a Kornweibel; Tolithia Kornweibel, according to google, is a marketing manager for esurance. Might be some weird attack page, or just patent nonsense. In any case, even if expanded, I see no need for this. Flyboy Will 09:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G & Flyboy Will JLaTondre 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Fitzgerald

The article appears to be advertising: an artist striving to attain recognition, no other indication of notability to merit an encyclopedia article... --Mysidia (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't even mention what the album's name is. -Iten 09:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy, no notability claimed. Flyboy Will 09:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nn-bio --Quarl 09:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above VegaDark 11:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smopping

The article is a badly written dictionary article for a word that does not exist. Uncle G 09:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Belongs in Wikitionary at the most, but I don't think it deserves that. -Iten 09:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Non-existent words do not belong in Wiktionary. Uncle G 09:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy Delete~~ as nonsense, doesn't even belong in wiktionary --Quarl 09:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Only patent nonsense is speedily deletable. Patent nonsense is not the same as nonsense. Uncle G 19:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete quickly. Thanks for the advice, Uncle G --Quarl 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete garbage. --Oscarthecat 10:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above VegaDark 10:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 11:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vcms

Not notable, not verifiable. No relevant Google results for "VietNam Content Management System". —Caesura ^(t) 09:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom--Quarl 09:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom VegaDark 10:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect to Channel One. Mind matrix 16:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChannelOne

Not notable, not verifiable. Doesn't Google. Redirect to Channel One, perhaps (but since it's a substantial article, I thought I should send it through AfD rather than redirecting it myself). —Caesura ^(t) 10:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an article about proposed, internal software for a company. WP:NOT an infodump, nor a crystal ball. I agree, the most appropriate course of action would be to delete then recreate as a redirect to Channel One. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above --Quarl 10:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect per nom. --Pboyd04 02:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Youngamerican 14:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and only then redirect. Renata3 15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Izzy Goldrunner

Orphaned article about a fan-fiction character. Not just any fan-fiction, either, but this is from Sonic the Hedgehog! Searches give 2000-odd hits, which Google then collapses down to 10 because they're too similar. Hits seem to have been produced by the article's creator using her character as a pseudonym. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate infodump. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, yuck. Sonic the Hedgehog has two paragraphs explaining fan characters; that's more than enough. --Quarl 10:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ew. Fancruft of the worst kind, not to mention advertising and vanity. Did you see the talk page? The user seems to think this is a message board. --InShaneee 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Renata3 15:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. (There was a stronger preference to keep the list.) Mind matrix 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish historians

This article was previously nominated for AFD, with a result of no consensus. All appropriate entries have been put into category:Jewish historians, so this list is now redundant. The only parallel to this is list of Irish historians, and there is no other list of historians in wikipedia categorised by either religion or ethnicity. Therefore, this list should be deleted, along with most other lists of Jews in particular occupations. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, because Wikipedia should not do the dirty work of, and is not a branch of, the despicable Jew Watch. IZAK 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Lists provide info that a category doesn't and allow anoms to add and edit info. Discussion has also been ongoing to improve this list, although I don't recall the nom participating. The category from what I can tell was created today and could be up on cfd tomorrow. Finally, thanks for choosing the first day of hanukkah for a debate on deleting most Jewish lists. -- JJay 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Anons are able to work on categories, too, you know. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - How do they add a new article to a category? -- JJay 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - By typing the following: [[Category:Jewish historians]] in the category section of the historian's article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - How does an anom add Ben Zion Dinur to a category with a short description? -- JJay 10:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Or any of the other historians, for whom we lack pages? How does someone quickly find a historian for a given period with a category, since it lacks a description? In short, a category can complement, but not replace a list -- JJay 10:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        
        The same way an anon writes anything else on articles that don't exist: he uses articles for creation, or he registers an account. Perhaps you could post a notice on your userpage offering your assistance in this process, or lobby Jimbo to change his mind about anon article creation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Or we could keep lists that serve a valuable purpose. -- JJay 10:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- There don't seem to be many people complaining about adding non-articled people to Wikipedia because of all the dreadful (sarcasm) categories --- since, you know, they could just go to any of the infinite amount of country lists and put them there under the historians or social scientists sections. Antidote 11:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Plus there's a massive List of Jews by country where anyone can put any Jewish historian easily, and Ben Zion Dinur can find his way into List of Israelis under the historians section. Antidote 11:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Until we ~~delete~~ reform those lists too. And spare me your sarcasm. -- JJay 11:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - So your reason for keeping this list is because you think eventually all Jewish lists will be deleted from Wikipedia? Hmm - Odd logic. I guess every ethnic group should fear for their lists on Wikipedia when articles with their name in it get nominated for deletion. Antidote 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - If you are doing the maintenance they should. Let me know when StabRule and the rest of the Atlanta boys get here. -- JJay 13:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Everything has been said about this list already. It is one of the infinite creations of the same users, from which spawned List of Jewish heads of High Schools List of Jewish Trapeze Artists and the like. Can't see whats wrong with this being a category, considering every other ethnic group has been maintained fine with categories. Antidote 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Change Vote: Keep per Endomion below. The pros of having a list outweigh the cons of having it. Red links are an invitation to create new articles.

Strong Keep. Categories and lists are not the same, and they do not substitute each other. We must stop this assault on Jewish lists.--Pecher 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- You should at least back up your statements - in my humble opinion, categories and lists are indeed exactly the same. Madman 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - At the very least, lists can serve a development purpose by including items for which articles are yet to be created. Categories do not have such a feature.--Pecher 13:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - That's the same point as Endomion made below.--Pecher 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Why is there such an urgent need for "Jewish lists"? Only the Nazis thought that "lists of Jews" were very important, and we know what that led to. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - strong or otherwise. It should be a category. Should there be an article on List of Spanish bakers or List of Japanese poets?? Would the Encyclopedia Britannica have such an entry? Nope. Madman 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. See List of Japanese language poets. That's why we are better than Britannica. -- JJay 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

- Neither lists nor categories of Jews, bloated out of all proportion, are needed. Just citing few examples in articles is enough. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nationality should not be a factor for a historian. List of Jewish polititians or Jewish actors - good. Jewish historians or Jewish airline pilots - not. Flyboy Will 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Does not make sense. Why is nationality a factor for an actor, but not for an airline pilot?--Pecher 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see what's wrong with having both a list and a category. (Personally I'm amazed we don't have a list for ancient Greek and Roman historians/playwrights/etc.) The list of Irish historians organizes them into time periods, which is information you couldn't get with a category. It's also easier to add info to a list (don't have to create an article). I would love it if every contributor spent the time to create an article, but the reality is that most people won't. If a name is added to a list then at least a seed is planted. --Fang Aili 17:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Whether it should be or not, nationality and ethnicity are important factors for historians. u p p l a n d 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I am changing to abstain, agreeing with the argument that a list such as this should probably be limited to historians studying Jewish history. u p p l a n d 11:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Lists are good starting points for new articles, people see a red link and break out the books. Endomion 18:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Observe that we already have a List of historians, which any name on this list could be included on. I'm not impressed by this argument. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per all the above. Jcuk 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's a relevant field of history and or segment of historians that can use expansion. That there isn't say a List of ecclesiastical historians or List of African-American historians is just because Wiki still lags a bit with history and the humanities. Doesn't it even say somewhere that Wikipedia is trying to expand in those fields somewhere? Also there is the recently created List of Islamic historians so even some analogies there are off.--T. Anthony 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: the list got created alongside with new category Category:Jewish historians, being mostly copy. My general opinion is that in such cases only one entity should exist (preferrably a list) to avoid redundancy and maintenance headaches. Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I've got nothing against having both categories and lists, since lists allow for more structure, though this list does not make use of this. However, this list doesn't say how one gets to be a Jewish historian: is one a histoiran who is jewish (apparently), or a scholar of jewish history. The latter list makes more sense to me. I don't like this list, but I'll think a bit more before deciding. --- Charles Stewart 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a template on the top of the page that says something along the lines of: "This is a list of Jews". Pepsidrinka 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. There should also/instead be a plain text lead paragraph that states the scope of the list. --- Charles Stewart 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep nominated by proxy by user obsessed with deleting Jewish lists who has voted up to six times on each afd, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, User_talk:Pianoman87#An_OLD_afd. Arniep 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep I don't like this list, as I don't like arbitrary conjunctions of lists of ethnicity with professions unrelated to ethnicity. However, I think that some policy along these lines should emerge before deleting, or that point should be properly discussed in the AfD. --- Charles Stewart 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Cf. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession, which has been open since 15 December. --- Charles Stewart 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Postscript - The talk page of that article suggests the criteria "would the list make a viable article without the list of" prefix. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I would appreciate some clarification from our nom (a proxy for Antidote- as shown by User_talk:Pianoman87#An_OLD_afd) regarding his statement that "this list should be deleted, along with most other lists of Jews in particular occupations". Which list of Jewish occupations would he find acceptable? Does he deny that the classification is routinely applied by the world at large? Why is Jewish historian- which gets 134,000 googles not valid for list classification? In comparison, Catholic historian, muslim historian, Christian historian, Buddhist historian, and Methodist historian, a favorite here, are far less widely used. I wonder how our nom proposes to reflect historical realities such as the lack of citizenship for Jews throughout much of European history, forced conversions, statelessness, self-identification,etc. without the context and explanation that a list can provide? -- JJay 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC

list of Catholic historians; List of Buddhist historians; list of Muslim historians --????? This is not a list of historians who conduct history on Judaism -- I attempted to push for that on the TALK page. I was refused without any viable reason. This is a list of historians who are Jewish -- which is HUGELY different. Antidote 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Observe the ambiguity I noted earlier. There isn't much research value that I can see to a list that covers Karl Marx (with the inaccurate information that he converted), Benny Morris and Thomas Kuhn. Now a list of historians of Judaism, ancient and modern Israel and the Shoah would be interesting. --- Charles Stewart 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I tried to push for on the talk page, but was refused because of some people "obsessed" with keeping Jewish lists the way they are. Antidote 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

well I agree that for many occupations nationality or ethnicity is a bit irrelevant, such as opera singer, classical musician, travel writer among others. But as Jews did not have their own state until the creation of Israel and were often denied citizenship or worse in countries in which they lived and most certainly had an identifiable culture of their own it is as justified to allow the Jewish people to have their own categories or lists as it is any other state. Arniep 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I never disagreed with that. I believe completely that Jews should have their own lists and categories, but I think that some users a while back seriously OVERDID the listing - and I know others have noticed that too. As a matter of fact, I think the categories for Jews are underrepresented when they shouldn't be. Jews should be treated as an ancestry and should have it's own category under people by ancestry. But the listing is truly overkill. Many other ethnic groups function fine with their own country lists, and Jews have the most country lists of anyone. If a Jewish historian with no article was to be added to Wikipedia, then it takes just as much effort to find out if the historian is Jewish than to find out if the historian is Jewish-German (List of German Jews) or Jewish-Hungarian (list of Hungarian Jews). I can see the rationale behind a list of Jewish historians who profess their Judaism in their writings in some form. That makes sense. The list as it is DOES NOT. If you truly agree with me on the fact that Judaism and being a historian have a connection than you will see that the way they are listed here will not work. If the majoriy of Wikipedian ethnic groups HAD lists of historians, then this list is completely fine, but they don't. Unless it is changed to reflect those who profess their religion in their works, it is truly overkill. I can't see how you can disagree with me. If you do, then please please help me understand because I seriously don't. My efforts here are not to "delete" all Jewish lists as User:JJay and you believe, it is to delete ALL lists that are overkill. Jewish lists, anyone will agree, have been the most overmade. I think LGBT lists are a problem too, but there are less of those. Anyway, please help me understand your vote for keep. Antidote 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

DELETE this and ALL "Lists" and "Categories" of Jews. They are beginning to look like allies of Jew Watch. IZAK 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's the intent. Many of those working on these lists are Jewish. That Category:Lists of Jews is so much larger than Category:Lists of Christians or Category:Lists of Japanese people I'll admit is a bit odd. I think it's probably more overeagerness to show Jewish accomplishments than an effort to justify idea "Jews run everything." In fact the fear it was turning into that I think is part of why List of Jewish bankers was removed.--T. Anthony 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I tend to agree with user:antidote that lists should only be created when a person's ethnicity/religion is relevant to their occupation. If list of Jewish historians only contained historians whose Judaism was relevant to their work, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Also, the articles that the list links to should justify their inclusion on the list. To take an example from list of Jewish historians, the article for Eugen Weber only hints that he is Jewish in the works section, and does not make any other connections between his Judaism and his work, so he should not be in the list. I'd probably support the inclusion of this list if it only contained historians whose Judaism is relevant to their work. Or maybe it could be moved to list of historians of Judaism and modified accordingly. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So when he wrote "Reflections on the Jews in France" from The Jews in Modern France, what was he writing about? Or that his "The Hollow Years" extensively examines anti-semitism? Do you actually know anything about the historians on this list? -- JJay 11:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I didn't notice that. I'll take back the statement about Eugen Weber. I don't know much about the historians on the list. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If you don't know much about them you should try to learn more. Most if not all the Jewish historians on the list will have addressed the Jewish condition in their work. In all cases, their relationship to Judaism is relevant. The list, if properly expanded and annotated, can provide context in a way that a category never can. Instead of continually nominating the list, you should help try to improve it. -- JJay 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't at all clear that the connection to Judaism is relevant from the description of the list. To cite one of the three examples I picked above, how is Thomas Kuhn (history of science) cogent in this respect? --- Charles Stewart 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It’s relatively facile to cherrypick names from a list until you manage to prove a point. Given the theological impact of Kuhn’s paradigm, I think his relationship to Judaism is relevant. I would also note that a google for Thomas Kuhn + Judaism gives 28,000 hits. Despite the hysterical reaction of IZAK (should we delete African-American lists because the Klan exists?), I'm still waiting for an explanation for the google results I listed above. Either a disproportionate number of Jews are historians, or we should acknowledge that the world at large routinely indicates religion for Jewish historians, despite their focus. -- JJay 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No cherry-picking involved. I picked three names I know well from the list: one is a historian of Israel, one did little historical work explicitly on the Jewish people, but is clearly relevant, and one looked to me entirely irrelevant. What theological relevance is there to Kuhn's work? He's a relevant name to invoke on the question of whether science and religion could be counted as having incommensurable domains of expertise, but to say that this says something about Jewish theology is rather strained. Is there more that can be said?--- Charles Stewart 19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you already forgotten Marx? We could also debate whether Kuhn is a historian or philosopher. These are secondary issues. Why don't you edit the list? Furthermore, when Jewish nobel prize winners are listed, as is routinely the case, what does that say about Jewish theology?-- JJay 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Most of these historians are NOT scholars of Judaism in any way, it is a mistake to think that they merit any connection with the word Jewish=Judaism to many people. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Roberts

Non-notable, self promo Oscarthecat 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per notability. Also, half that article looks like a personal attack against that person. VegaDark 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7. Though it looks disparaging, I think he wrote it all himself. --Quarl 10:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 02:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for wasting my time reading so much, and not finding anything. Also, it looks like a copyvio, but I can't yet find the source. --Rob 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and Rob. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Fake DIY

Nn webzine. http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/ has Alexa rank of 12,000. Abstain for now. --Quarl 10:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep Decent Alexa rating but it's not even a stub. If it's not past this state by the end of five days, delete. FCYTravis 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete website advertising Zzzzz 11:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete just a web link. Colin99 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (speedy?) - ad. One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth method

Non-notable music group. Delete --Quarl 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of saying "non-notable", explain why it's non-notable. I suspect your problem here might be that you completely forgot to nominate in the rush to get your nice bolded vote written. What do you think? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've been imitating the amount of explanation other nn-music nominations have. No claimed notability. Unverifiable - no relevant google hits for "sixth method". Formed in 2005. --Quarl 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. There are a lot of bodgy nominations on any given AfD daylog. Most of the articles that get nominated are drek, but we owe it to the 5% that aren't to make sure our nominations clearly explain why we believe something should be deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable enough with information given. VegaDark 11:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per User:VegaDark. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC --- Charles Stewart 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy--nixie 05:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kancer-Kylie: Breast Cancer Fundraiser

Despite being crystal-ballism, this seems like a hoax, as a Google search for "Kancer-Kylie" reveals no results Cnwb 11:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone finds something verifying this. This artice is the creator's only edit, so I am more inclined to think it is a hoax. VegaDark 11:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
Delete as hoax. Sarah Ewart 11:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax --Quarl 11:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Roisterer 14:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- hoax. - Longhair 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fartinbuger

Delete. Google search for term "Fartinbuger" returns 4 hits, all about medicine, not tugboats. Seems to be a joke that went unnoticed. Only one editor with only one edit, other than myself adding the AfD tag. -Scm83x 11:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

...and those four hits are for Fartinbuger, and this article says it's about the "Fartinburger". A hoax in the form of a very weak joke. Delete unless someone can find more than the zero references google found for Fartinburger. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax --Quarl 11:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. VegaDark 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer2mail

One in literally thousands "programs that download email from mail servers". Do we need to document them ALL? No. Timecop 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. VegaDark 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no claim to notability --Quarl 11:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is (trying to be) the sum (I.E. Total or ALL) of human knowledge. Jcuk 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Extend P2M is indeed one of the most advanced of these kind of programs, and much better comparing to "literally thousands" of other alternatives. There are lots of program articles, so why not this one?hudd 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but something started in 2004 as opposed to an email program thats been around for over a decade or another decade, does not sound nearly as notable. Not to mention >6million google hits for Eudora (email client), and ~3million for Pegasus Mail, while only 200,000 for Peer2Mail most of which are duplicate links off download sites. My vote still stands as Delete. --Timecop 00:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

well wikipedia is not a comparison site, netiher these programs are the same type, except that they are doing things with mail servers but technically any computer with a modem and telnet can do this. i am going to write a better explaination of what it does, then its up to others to choose. hudd 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Expand The article, as is, is AfD material. However, it may be noteworthy, but who will know unless more information is provided? --GNAA Staos 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand per above. -- JJay 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete just another copyright violation tool -- Femmina 01:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it is now or someone expand it enough to make we want to change my vote. --Pboyd04 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable enough. — mark ✎ 11:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn -- Hosterweis 02:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howch e ng {chat} 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ensoniq OPUS

~~Advertisement~~ for a soundcard chip, ENSONIQ ES-5530, probably copyvio too. ~~Delete~~ --Quarl 11:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Reyk 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. — mark ✎ 11:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, part of my addition to Ensoniq sound card history. Ensoniq is defunct and this is a ~9 yr old chip. Swaaye 16:10, 28 December 2005.
I see. I take back my accusation of advertising. It looks like much of the article was copied from the website -- not sure if this constitutes copyright violation or not, but should be expanded and written in prose if kept. I'm still not sure if all of these individual sound card chips are notable enough to warrant their own articles. Unsure of vote now, maybe smerge all of them to one article. --Quarl 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Secret 7000

This looks like a non-notable vanity entry to me. A group of 6 amateur film-makers, who only published their work online. Their website is not too well-known either - Alexa rank 2,526,304. Delete. Marcika 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Quarl 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as well per nom Madman 15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Indifferent Secret7000 I'm one of the six from the site. I haven't asked the other five if any of them created this entry yet; I stumbled across it only through HTTP referrer. I wouldn't be awfully fussed if it was removed - we're not too well known, as stated, and probably don't deserve our own entry just yet. But we're not bad either. 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. I excluded a number of sockpuppet keep votes, though it didn't make much of a difference. Mind matrix 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakal an-Khâr, Anarikê, Tanturak and Anbalukkhôr

These two articles were created by the same user who gave us Bellakar, which has been repeated deleted. The articles describe lands created in LotR fanfic, and I believe that's probably all we have to say about that. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, nor an indiscriminate infodump. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. From each article: "It is a fan unfinished work" --Quarl 12:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete these should of been speedied. They are non-notable fan works from the same mailing list as the first one and by extention of this been should of been speedy deleted. But now they are going to get their five days of fame and there will probably be some keep votes from the sockpuppets who keep reposting these. Q Q 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete these actually were marked for speedy but the tags got removed before anyone could act on it. In addition to the non-notable nature of the work there are also verifiability issues since the only source is a restricted mailing list. The fact that the articles keep getting reposted in detail also suggests they are being copied from that restricted list, creating potential copyvio issues. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Proposing to delete these articles entirely violates the wikipedia webhost, which IS a free webhost where we can find many interesting articles. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. If these articles are removed, then we can all assume that Wikipedia is a RESTRICTED encyclopedia, where only few articles are admitted. Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a webhost, and you do not have the right to post whatever you want here. By the way, I've taken the liberty of altering your .sig on the presumption that you weren't intending to impersonate User:Quaque. In future, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your notes, instead of copying and pasting someone else's .sig — signing properly will help you avoid confusion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alcantar, "only few articles"?? You must be joking. There are currently 2,413,494 articles, and this figure is unlikely to plateau anytime soon. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005
  - No I am not joking. Who takes the final decision, which text to keep, which text to correct ? A decision of one people (or ten), comparing to those who visit these pages is ILLEGAL, and all the Bellakar stuff should be restaured and not deleted. This debate is nasty. Alcantar (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Decisions on content are usually made based on community consensus. There is nothing 'illegal' about that. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - But you forget the issue of the AFD. You can't have a community consensus, this is the will of few people. So all this debate is nasty and prevent other users to post their contributions. Alcantar (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I think you are talking about the 'speedy deletion' of Bellakar. That's actually different from 'AFD'. Bellakar was previously discussed, similar to the pages listed here, and deleted by community consensus. There is a procedure for arguing that it should be restored here. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - You keep using the word "illegal". I do not think it means what you think it means. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Careful, could be Mr. Treason. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:28, Dec. 26, 2005

Note: Anbalukkhôr and Tanturak added as of the time in my .sig. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete with a plea for speedy deleting any self-identified fan fiction. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005
Protect the pages, then slap a big ol' {{deleted}} template over 'em. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete burn, protect, lock, shred and otherwise remove this cruft forever. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep What really is cruft ? Not the article itself, but all the nasty comments. And when I hear the comments of some users, I can see they are intolerant.Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is a duplicate vote (see Alcantar's other 'keep' vote above). Previous repeat vote from this user was edited into a comment. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Keep this please, or discard all the texts of wikipedia. Deletion process is really, really bad and means that wikipedia is not free and submitted to the will of few individuals who are true fanatics of what can be written and what can't be written. All these texts should be kept. Fulzin (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do you two actually know what Wikipedia is? It's not a free webhost for anything that takes your fancy, you know. It's an honest-to-goodness attempt at creating an encyclopaedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Then wikipedia is an entire failure. I disagree with you. This is a dictatorial encyclopedia, no less. You decided that wikipedia was not a free webhost, which is an entire mess, and I would speak of wikipedia lies.Fulzin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Where in the hell did you get that idea? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Crap that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, like made-up fan fiction that only you know about, simply doesn't belong, and is going to be deleted. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not a free webhost. Erase the term "free" as there is nothing free and sympathic there. .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a 'free encyclopedia' in the sense that you don't have to pay to look things up... as you would for a paper encyclopedia or other electronic encyclopedias such as Britannica's. It is NOT a 'free webhost' in that you aren't allowed to use it to post any material you would like... only material which one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Now, people have made 'encyclopedias of Middle-earth' and thus you see alot of Middle-earth articles in Wikipedia... but nobody would ever make (or buy) an 'encyclopedia of unfinished fan RPG material set in Middle-earth'. It's just not the kind of thing ANYONE is ever going to need a handy encyclopedic reference guide to. What you should do is post your materials to geocities or some other web-host site. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejucide - this is just confusing. This fanboy is trying to alter LotR mythos by creating his own made up locations. This certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 December 2005
- Speaking on Delete ? You'll then prove that wikipedia is no worth, while LotR mythos can certainly be expanded, and REALLY belongs to an encyclopedia. Fulzin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Actually I would say the LotR mythos shouldn't be expanded. And even if you are going to make stuff up and expand it yourself, it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, but a personal website. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge (or at least an attempt at one). Why don't all of you cruft-fans go to Wikicities and add to any of the wikis there, or start a new one, on any topic that suits your fancy. 131.111.8.103 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. A few hints: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, which means that stuff you make up should not be included unless it's pretty widely known and somehow significant. As fuddlemark has pointed out, WP is not a "free web-host", and I would also endorse the comment of Cyde above. I do hope you'll all stay and contribute to the The Lord of the Rings articles and any others you're interested in. Bikeable 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep A free or not a free webhost is not really the point. The fact here is that there are many intolerant people who can't be OK with other people opinion. Delete is their only arguement, and a not really convincing one .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: the two "keep" votes by Pete Fenlon were created in the same edit, which is Mr. Fenlon's first and only edit thusfar. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:16, Dec. 26, 2005
  - Haha, I like how he voted twice in one edit. That, errr, says something about him. And his argument basically boils down to us being intolerant of other people's opinions? What? That's not what this is about. This is about determining whether or not content merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This content patently does not belong as it is entirely original research. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- And that really says something on you. Why couldn't Fenlon post a vote and a comment ? I interpreted the second response as a comment, and not as a second vote. Your argument boils down, intolerant may be you are ... Fulzin (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Not only did you "interpret", but you changed Fenlon's second vote to a Comment. Please do not change other people's votes. Bikeable 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Fulzin is a new user account and his only edits are to this AfD page. This is getting ridiculous. It's a bunch of votes for deletion and then a bunch of sockpuppets for keeping it. And the sockpuppets think we are blatantly stupid ... modifying their own votes? Please, we know how to use a Page History. I trust that the admin closing this discussion will see through all of this nonsense. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment All this discussion is entirely non sense, while there is no real argument against these texts. Sockpuppets for deletion, and others for keeping it. This only proves that wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia, and this can't be trusted for that precise reason. This is dictatorial, and many intolerant views... These intolerant opinions entirely discredit the idea of an free encyclopedia.Alcantar (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- What a terrible mischaracterization. "Sockpuppets for deletion"? LMAO. Look at my edit history, I am no sockpuppet. You, on the other hand, only have edits on this page and the pages for deletion in question. And you obviously do not know what an encyclopedia is, nor do you understand what the usage of the word "free" means in this context. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I can assure you that YOU are a sockpuppet. Your attitude, and your non respect towards others who don't agree with you proves that you are a sockpuppet. And yes, I have no more interest on wikipedia, because of the hostile reception to these few articles that does no harm to the encyclopedia, but improves it. This enriches the encyclopedia, but blatantly you can't see it. Thank you Cyde Weys and some other "sockpuppets delete" (and I was not the one who brought that insult here !Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have no idea what a sock puppet is. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete delete all per nom - FrancisTyers 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete delete all, pre nom. -- Vary | Talk 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
delete all. Be careful not to tread on the newbies toes - there was a time when none of us knew what Wikipedia was, so the fact that they don't know is only natural. To those who have saifd keep, a question: would you expect to find these articles in Encyclopedia Britannica? If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you'd expect to find them in any other encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia stuff is in question, and new pages added CAN BE ERASED WITHOUT ANY WARNING, and every content on a page can BE MODIFIED WITHOUT SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's what Wikipedia is. Yes, anyone can edit any article put here... that's the whole idea. If you want to host a page that only you can change... Wikipedia is not the place for it. Again, I urge you to simply find a web-host such as Geocities for your project. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment ... and every user or administrator, can put an AFD on some pages he considers for a speedy deletion, and delete the pages (CENSURE). Alcantar (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Anyone can nominate any page for AFD, sure. But as you'll see from a quick glance at the AFD archives, they'll soon get told off if they nominate pages which are encyclopaedic, with the pages so nominated being speedily kept. And a large number of the borderline cases which are nominated survive the AFD process. That's what consensus is all about. And there are very strict rules as to which pages can be speedy deleted, as a glance at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion will show. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete most fan fictions are not notable, and these articles do state that it is a "work in progress." Tripod will be welcome to have those pages, but Wikipedia is not the place to host uncompleted fan-fics. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete, delete with fire. FFINN. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge into a article that's something like [Locations in Lord of the Rings]. I believe there is some good content in there but needs to be cleaned up and other locations added. SandBoxer 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- You don't understand. These aren't real locations in the LotR mythos. They're all made up by a small number of fans from a Yahoo! discussion group. This information is patently non-encyclopedic and including it on a page of actual LotR locations created by J.R.R. Tolkien would be doing a disservice to the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta. Sorry, just had to establish my LOTR-credibility there for a second. Now, this is the sort of thing that will not do. Fan fiction is subject to severe requirements of notability before it can reach encyclopedic value, and I do not thing any fanfic, anywhere has ever succeeded in it. This is how it should be. Ergo, Delete. --Agamemnon2 08:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, per nom. — mark ✎ 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an obvious delete. And isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of the "keep" votes on here are written with the same terrible English grammar? ;) Kafziel 14:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete all related pages nn fanfic — meatpuppets need to go, too. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment remove some parts of my earlier comments.Alcantar (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- sorry, no can do. Signed comments to wikispace pages and talk pages aren't removed, since that can seriously distort the sense of a user's comments. Do you really want other people deciding what is to be kept and what is to be removed of the things you said here? Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  - It appears from the history that Alcantar meants "removed some parts", which indeed they did, ever-so-slightly toning down the wikipedia-bashing. Bikeable 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 21:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Wars

Non-notable, unlicensed online game, which appears to fail WP:WEB. This article has previously been deleted (see previous discussion here), so may be a candidate for speedy deletion. I wouldn't know, because I can't compare the two articles to see if they are the same. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The two articles are not identical — the deleted version is far superior :-) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as recreation of a deleted article. --Apostrophe 07:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I wish we could. For an G-4 to apply, it neends to be substantially identical. Fuddlemark says the two, while on the same website, are different. I assume different enough to succesfly dodge a CSD. We'll have to do this the hard way. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — TheKMan^talk 10:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. slab 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete nothing here - and blanked by sole contrib. -Doc ^ask? 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EastEnders Autographs

Firstly, this is unencyclopedic. Secondly, it's fancruft. Thirdly, we should not be putting people's addresses up on Wikipedia. Reyk 12:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, it's unencyclopaedic (wouldn't call it fancruft). By the way, the address there appears to be one belonging to the BBC, not to any particular actor. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - page has no content. Essexmutant 12:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete page been blanked by author and only contained the BBC address. Q Q 12:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. --Thorpe | talk 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, of no value. But then, neither is the TV programme (IMHO)! Colin99 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Systems management. howch e ng {chat} 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PC Management Software

Advertisement for Prefixit. Nobody uses the term "PC management software" (no google results anyway) except Prefixit. ~~Delete~~ --Quarl 12:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge useful parts into Systems management --LesleyW 12:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (as redirect) - merge has been completed. Keeping the article name will tend to help avoid re-creation in the future. --LesleyW 21:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. --Pboyd04 02:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Some info was partially used for Functions section of Systems management. I recommend to delete the article.~~ — Anrie Nord 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per above. — Anrie Nord 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep as redirect —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 03:21Z
Keep as redirect per Quarl. — Anrie Nord 04:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Homey 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged pedophiles

This article is obviously slander and NPOV as none of these people have actually been proven to be pedophiles. Probably CSDable as an attack and slander page and also per verifiability standards, but I'm not too sure. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete or speedy per nom. --Quarl 12:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete the fact that the title contains "alleged" is proof of its POV. Pepsidrinka 13:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. POV magnet that promises to get Wikipedia in trouble one day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Alleged by who? A list like absolutely needs to have strict inclusion criteria, and outside sourcing for every entry. Neither of these is present. Delete unless these problems are rectified. (Neutral, at best, even if they are.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Holy pedophilic shit. Speedy delete. Flyboy Will 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete maybe celebrities charged with pedophilia??--Gbleem 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't be charged with pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
lol. Slander? No more than our "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation." If this article is kept I can provide sources for all "accusations." // paroxysm (n) 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Possibly libellous, inevitably POV, poorly fleshed-out (suggesting a lack of interest). Furthermore, what does "alleged" mean? Glitter was convicted in a court of law. Jackson settled out of court. Baden-Powell is pure conjecture. The problems, I hope, are manifest. It has to go. Batmanand 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Dangerous as it stands, any name could be added, anyone can make allegations. Colin99 20:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As said, you better delete our List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people article ASAP, too. // paroxysm (n) 20:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, let's just delete all of Wikipedia to be safe. As it stands, anything could be added, anyone can make allegations. // paroxysm (n) 20:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Being gay is not a sex crime. FCYTravis 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Being a pedophile is not a sex crime, either. // paroxysm (n) 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: thanks for bringing "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation." to my attention, Proxysm. That list needs to be deleted or extremely cleaned up (you were perhaps joking, but I am serious). I looked at some of the articles linked from that list, and they do not have any explanation for why the person is listed there. Others are dubious "debates", i.e. tabloids. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The entire article (like List of alleged pedophiles) is one giant weasel word (see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words). --Quarl 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Smite from face of Earth- this article is everything I hate: listcruft, POV, personal attacks. Kill kill kill. Reyk 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete and recreate, if desired, as a category with SPECIFIC verifiable sourcing guidelines. See Category:Accused Soviet spies. FCYTravis 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Rename, rewrite and constrain I am the person who compiled the list in question. Thank you all for your sensible comments. I would not want the wiki community to suffer any harm as a result of what should originally have appeared in the sandbox. Since wikipedia articles already contain information about people associated with pedophilia I propose the following:

Title: Change to "People associated with pedophilia"

Rewrite: Include a discussion on listing of pedophiles

Rules for inclusion: Restrict names on the list to people who:

a) Are subjects or are named in existing wikipedia articles (pls follow the links to check),

b) included in which are discussions of their association with pedophilia

--Suidafrikaan 05:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete inherently POV and attack. In it's early form it was a clear {{db-attack}}. Now, I'm not sure if it's speedy, but its definately in need of deletion. Also, don't think a name like People associated with pedophilia will make this ok, as that just opens the door to more people being added to it. --Rob 06:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

if it is POV then surely all the sections of wiki articles to which it links are subjects for deletion, too. will the proponents of deletion be consistent and follow through with this logic?--Suidafrikaan 06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you put an accused murderer, a convicted shoplifter, a convicted serial killer, and a person accused but never formally charged, all in one article entitled List of alleged criminals I would AFD that too. If you renamed it to People associated with criminality and added a defense lawyer, I would definately AFD that. Meanwhile, I would still keep all those individual bio articles. I see no inconsistency with deleting a blacklist, while keeping the subjects of the blacklist. --Rob 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not the articles but the links. I took the link off the pedophilia article. --Gbleem 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I struggle to understand your logic. For each of the names on the list there is a wikipedia article providing all the details that the list summarizes. Why is it that the facts are fine in an article, but as sooon as one lists them this constitutes a blacklist? Same information, different format. I generally consider myself fairly PC but the blacklist logic is PC elevated to the status of faith.--Suidafrikaan 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Context effects meaning. As an example, one of the first people added (later removed) has an article that provides meaningful context of exactly what he was convicted of and what he wasn't convicted of. This list provides little context. The pre-AFD list provided no context whatsoever. Right now, there's a lot of scrutiny, and effort to "clean-up" this thing due only to the AFD. Once the AFD is over, attention will fade, and people will be free to add whatever names they wish. Allegations are closely scrutinized in bio articles, as people familiar with the person review them. But most lists in Wikipedia go largely unnoticed (except by people adding to them), and frequently contain dubeious info, that goes unchallenged. On the pre-AFD article, while it's common to start an article in a low-quality draft stage for its first version, surely something this serious warranted something a little better (there is a "Preview" button, next to the "Save" button after all). If this is kept, we can expect future poorly thought out contributions to the list (as editors will know the article's immune from deletion). --Rob 08:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unmaintainable, POV. — mark ✎ 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete The term 'alleged' makes the article, by its very nature, POV. By grouping those 'alleged' by a few crack-pots with those convicted or sex crimes in a court of law, one clearly enters the region of implying guilt. That, in any jurisdiction, is defamation of character. Besides, even if it weren't, it seems like a pointless article in the first place. What sort of encyclopaedia creates lists of 'alleged' facts (legal or otherwise)? Bastin8 13:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

pedophilia is a sexual preference not a crime, just like homosexuality; hence you're "implying guilt" part is nonsense kthx. and again, it's no more defamation than our List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. // paroxysm (n) 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Paedophilia may well be a sexual preference, but, then again, so's rape (which paedophilia is, legally, in England & Wales). Both are illegal in just about any jurisdiction that I could ever imagine, including, for the record, Florida, where Wikimedia is based. I don't care what your personal opinion of paedophilia is, because the only opinion that matters is that of the law, which makes this page defamation, hence illegal. Bastin8 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

o rly, Bastin..? Hmmm...

"Pedophilia" is not a legal term. It is a medical term used to describe the sexual attraction to children. Child sexual abuse and et cetera are described in a court of law as child sexual abuse, not pedophilia (for obvious reasons). Tabloids love to use nonsensical phrases like "convicted of pedophilia," though, but uhm, they're tabloids (QED). Pedophilia is not an act, and hence, you can not be convicted of it. Perhaps reading our very own article on pedophilia would be beneficial to you, hmm.. ?

So in the end, I agree, the law is all that matters, and the law doesn't give a damn about pedophilia. You can freely admit you're a pedophile in front of a cop and all he can do is gasp and call you a sicko. Thankfully. // paroxysm (n) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to argue the toss about the differences between paedophilia and actually raping a child, it's best not to do it when arguing to retain this article. After all, most of the people in the list aren't there for reasons of thought, but for the reason that someone believes them each to have gone through with the act. If that is the justification for inclusion, your argument that the list actually concerns a psychological condition is flawed.

Then, the rectification of that 'flaw' (as you see it) leads to further problems. If we keep the list, and it is used to reflect 'paedophiles' in the more esoteric sense, we would be publishing a list of people's thoughts that are inferred from their behaviour. That is far more Orwellian than the alternative.

Moreover, use of the term 'paedophile' is understood by the public to imply that the paedophile actually practises it, just as is homosexual. Since that is the understanding, it is the definition for purposes of establishing whether the article is defamation. Bastin8 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and block>/s> - List of weaselly defamation. Would provide much opportunity for mischief. WP has no place for such a list. --- Charles Stewart 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Man, I sure do love reading. It's great.~~

~~On your "weaselly" part -- I'll add a reference for these supposed "accusations" now. // paroxysm (n) 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Nevermind, somebody's already done a wonderful job on that. Keep. // paroxysm (n) 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)~~
Comment - I'm having second thoughts about this. This sort of list is very easy to abuse, but clearly efforts have been made to minimise the risk here. The list is still abusable in certain respects:

1. Two of the sections have rather fluid criteria for inclusion, namely Historical figures alleged to have been pedophiles - what constitutes an allegation? - and People associated with pedophile organizations - what constitutes an association?

2. The list has four rather different sorts of sections, and there is no clear reason why other sections might not be added. What looks to be a policeable list might easily become unpoliceable in time.
So my second thoughts are that the page might not be so unpoliceable in time. I'll vote keep if we can establish some clear discipline for maintaining the list, but I'm dubious now. --- Charles Stewart 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Shreshth91, slander is oral defamation. I think the word you're looking for is libel which is written defamation. If libel is anyone's sincere concern then I trust that you will all be calling for deletion of the articles on Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, and any number of biographical wikiworks that contain rumours, allegations, and sourced opinions.--Suidafrikaan 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result of the debate was delete all. Mind matrix 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Riotfolk, RiotFolk, Riot Folk

Ad for an anachist collective (which is itself a bit of an oxymoron) that's only particulary notable in a small niche on the US NW. Google search only finds reference to the collective, and not a genre. Only backlinks are hastily added "Some also consider him "riotfolk". Jgritz 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. One of their singers is also up for an AfD. There's also RiotFolk and Riot Folk out there. Flyboy Will 06:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that they are non-notable. I am based in England and saw the riot-folk collective playing at the recent G8 convergence space, a space where thousands of activists from across the world came together to resist the group of 8 nations. They toured the country and have since become well known over here.
- ~~preceding unsigned comment by User:Resonantstorm, his first and only wiki edit. Flyboy Will 19:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Note: relisting 26/12/05, and doing so without buzzwords, too (w00t!). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. — mark ✎ 11:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not a standard genre. Renata3 15:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

~~DELETE: I am in Riot Folk and we are just an eight member collective, there's no genre of music called riot folk. (mark gunnery)~~

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS about deletion but MOVE to Jeffrey Schilling. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] The Maundy Thursday Rescue

There are no online references to 'Maundy Thursday Rescue', and the only relevant result for '"maundy thursday" marines' is this page, from which the article here is partly plagarized. I would suggest that this episode is not encyclopedic, so I support deletion; if it is notable and encyclopedic, I would suggest a move to Jeffrey Schilling and some considerable rewriting. - squibix 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. If notable (and I don't believe that it is), it should be filed under Jeffrey Schilling. Madman 16:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename per above. -- JJay 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
keep and move and re-write - 'Jeffrey Schilling' gives 1470 hits. Somebody just wrote 4 year old news piece under wrong title. Renata3 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result of the debate was speedied already. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Runescape cat care

Delete nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Uhh...~~
1. ~~It's not nonsense~~
2. ~~That's not a nomination, it's a vote, and not a particularly good one. Please put more effort into your nominations.~~
3. ~~This article is a copyright violation in any case, so no worries. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)~~

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result of the debate was speedied already. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)~~

[edit] Runescape mage arena

Delete nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Uhh...~~
1. ~~It's not nonsense~~
2. ~~That's not a nomination, it's a vote, and not a particularly good one. Please put more effort into your nominations.~~
3. ~~This article is a copyright violation in any case, so no worries. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)~~

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I have taken the liberty of merging the contents into Miniclip, but please note this is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. If you think an article could be merged Be Bold and do it yourself instead of foisting it off on AfD. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing Bush

~~Not much information, could be put into Miniclip. Thorpe | talk 14:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)~~

Merge into Miniclip. The article about the people who presented "Dancing Bush" could use a little beefing up with examples of their work. B.Wind 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if really needed merge. — mark ✎ 11:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge, 145,000 google hits. Kappa 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per B.Wind --NaconKantari 06:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

~~The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Ashley Burns

~~Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Burns~~

This is a non-notable event, and is effectively a memorial page. It caused no legislation to be enacted, and there were no other long-term ramifications to cheerleading. MSJapan 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this misplaced afd nomination from the article's talk page, after User:MSJapan re-tagged the page afd several times (still pointing at the first discussion). In case it's not already clear, no opinion on deletion from me.—Cryptic (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Neutral - Maybe no legislation was enacted, but it's kind of hard to legislate cheerleading anyway, and I think this incident did bring a renewed focus on safety in high school cheerleading across the country. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Sad news that got some media attention but the person Ashley Burns is not a notable person except for her unfortunate death. Some parts pertaining to the circumstances of her accident could go to cheerleading if it is not already mentioned there.--Kalsermar 18:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a memorial. If there is something to be saved from this, it should go into some "dangers of cheerleading" section. If the cheerleading project is including something about "cheerleading stereotypes," it should be able to include the essence of the Burns article. Tearful delete and hopeful merge. B.Wind 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I hate to delete these, but this really should be here. --Pboyd04 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Pboyd04. — mark ✎ 11:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I just can't bring myself to deleting an article on a subject such as this. If we delete this article I think we should delete JonBenét Ramsey and other articles. These kinds of articles brings much needed awareness to safety issues. If you Google her name, 1,900,000 results come up, and this got much publicity on news websites and networks, so she was fairly noteworthy. Plus, my cousin's name is Ashley Burns, but just disregard that. Эйрон Кинни 00:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Um. 1.9 million? I only see 704 hits. —Cryptic (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I got 1 770 000... --Thorri 22:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Because that's a search for every page that has both Ashley and Burns on it, somewhere. Almost none refer to this person, instead going to pages like these. —Cryptic (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or merge with cheerleading. Not notable enough for a whole article. I disagree with the suggestion that we make an exception for "helpful" articles. Wikipedia isn't a platform for issuing safety warnings, raising awareness of specific issues, or otherwise malipulating information. Articles should be judged on their encyclopedic merit, not by their putative effect on the public good. Bhumiya 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lulu Lamer

Delete not enought to rate a page in my opinion.--Looper5920 09:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity page. Madman 22:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like vanity. Delete as article doesn't assert notability - a person doesn't get notable play-testing video games. B.Wind 22:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity BACbKA 11:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travel Games

The article has no proper meaning and lists games which are both immature and dangerous. The page is not encyclopediac. Erebus555 16:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Madman 15:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not needed. --Thorpe | talk 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article can certainly be written about travel games. See, for example, here. This article ain't it, though, and this miscapitalized title would merit a redirect at best. (We probably already have an article; while I couldn't find one, I didn't look very hard.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Duh, the article itself links to car game. ~~Redirect~~ Merge the lead there; I've just redirected travel game and travel games. —Cryptic (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to car game but do NOT merge these stupid games as new content. Endomion 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Endomion. --King of All the Franks 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment without vote. "Travel Games" - usually in all caps - was a line offered by Parker Brothers since the 1970s before Hasbro bought it, Milton Bradley, and a few other game companies. In each case - including "Travel Sorry," "Travel Battleship," and "Travel Monopoly" - it was a modified version to fit the traveler's pocket. The Travel Games line barely lives on, with games that were formerly Milton Bradley games. B.Wind 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: These older companies have produced a few new travel versions of old games such as Travel Scrabble. Other companies have adopted the idea, such as Travel Blokus from Educational Insights. No relevance to the deleteworthy article in question. Barno 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Trickster. howch e ng {chat} 00:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trickery

Article merely defines 'Trickery using an unattributed quote - nothing of substance, no links - seemingly well-intentioned attempt but ultimately empty - Wiktionary does it much much better Madman 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Except for the first sentence, this is a perfectly encyclopedic stub about tricksters. As it happens, though, we already have a better article about them at Trickster. Redirect there (or perhaps to the disambig at Trick). —Cryptic (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Cryptic. Endomion 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Cryptic. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. Hamster Sandwich 23:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toolstar

Appears to be advertising, particularly since the article attempts to push reader into link right off the bat. Perhaps software is notable enough for encyclopedic entry, but it doesn't seem so to me. Madman 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing but a few download links on a google search. Doesn't seem notable. --Pboyd04 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel bercovich

If he was really "one of the most prominent israeli [sic] young poets", as the article asserts, he wouldn't have to "publish his divine work on Wikipedia". —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that I was looking at a vandalized revision of the article. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete; per page, "Hopefully, his future project will be better than his present fiction." Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete No merit. Cyberevil 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thuan

Patent nonsense. I had nominated it for speedy deletion but for some reason User:Ulayiti decided to keep it. It is patent nonsense, a local gaming in-joke (and rife with spelling errors). Delete Madman 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not patent nonsense (please stop and read that page before tagging anymore articles with it), and Ulayiti was 100% correct not to speedy it. Nevertheless, the in-joke is entirely discardable, and the mention about it being a Vietnamese name belongs in Wiktionary's appendix for given names, not here. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I just BJAOD'd it. —The most intelligent Wikipedian EVER!!! 16:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Cryptic. — mark ✎ 11:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Modern Times Club

The Modern Times Club is a series of real but non-notable and probably transitory events. I found only 151 Google hits, some of which were from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites Madman 16:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete in its current form. I can't see anything notable about this as it stands now. --Pboyd04 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV and unsourced and no real claim to notability. Renata3 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge, move, redirect, and/or clean-up as the move strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The God of Village

Although this article seems to be written in good faith, I cannot find anything on the 'net to directly support this concept. Taoism does indeed support a hierarchy of gods, so perhaps this "God of Village" is instead many many separate "Gods of Villages". In any case, unless the article can be cleaned up by someone with more indepth knowledge than I have, I would suggest a delete Madman 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If this article is merged with Taoism make sure it doesn't land in the Tao chia (or Daojia) section of philosophical Taoism, which has no gods. Endomion 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep & cleanup. Most English-language sources on religious Taoism refer to these local deities as a "Land God" or "Earth God." (Look halfway down this page for an example of a statue of a Land God.) They fit into the Taoist hierarchy of dieties above the Kitchen God but below the City God or Town God. Aside from the name-- which may well be a legitimate translation-- there is nothing wacky about the info in the article, though some of it might need sourcing. I agree that it should be cleaned up rather than being merged into the Taoism article. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
--Oh, and it looks like the article originally had an image of "Tudi Gong" or "Tu Di Gong"-- I have no idea what picture was there originally, but it was probably something like [this]. If I had time to clean this up now, I would, but I don't . . . Crypticfirefly 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: this title should redirect to a discussion of village gods in general, or a disambig pointing to Tudi if "The God of Village" is really a specific title for the dude. Kappa 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have a good point. There probably should be a village gods disambig. page, as they have them in Japan, Korea, India, etc. Crypticfirefly 02:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep but change into village god, village gods in Taoism, spirit of village, or something to that effect. I do not know enough about the subject to be sure what form would be the most appropriate. - Skysmith 12:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - not because it's commercial, but because it's an ad. DS 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BusinessSeek.biz Business Directory

I would support a speedy delete but the speedy tag has been in place for a while, maybe AfD would be a quicker end if we can show a consensus. Non-notable website +/- spam. Ifnord 16:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

delete spam / nn website. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
delete, fails WP:WEB Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the website owner and I don't feel my link should be deleted. I have added my site to the Directories List - right where my site belongs. I see it's up for deletion because it's commercial - so are other directories listed there such as Yahoo (I have provided over 10000 free links to the internet community). My site is a useful resource for members of Wikipedia and I would appreciate it if my article isn't deleted. I am also open to suggestions on ways I could make my article Wikipedia friendly? Any help would be appreciated. At the end of the day the category is called "List of Web Directories" exactly what my site is - a directory. If my link is deleted so should all the directory links be deleted, plus the category, because that means you cannot add directories to this category - therefore rendering it a useless category. Hope someone can understand, that category is for directories - regardless of whether the listed is submitted to by directory owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BizSeek (talk • contribs) 26 December 2005

- Yahoo is a notable web directory, millions of people use it. This is an encyclopedia not a phone book, sorry. Ifnord 22:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete not a notable website. --Pboyd04 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable / advertising. — mark ✎ 11:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fretwide

Delete Looks like NN band, would speedy, but they claim to have originated a genre "Run" — have they "become the most prominent representative of a notable style" per WP:MUSIC, or is "Run" also NN? Chris the speller 16:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't find anything of note on the band or the "Run" genre of music. --Pboyd04 02:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horsley Hills

Terribly formatted article, doesn't seem to have much capacity for expansion, doesn't seem notable enough. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Many articles are fixable with a little elbow grease. Endomion 17:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ - The standard of notability applied to geographic locations would either require the deletion of thousands of equally, or less, notable locations, or keeping this one. I vote for an inclusive policy for such, it may take a while to find somebody with the local knowledge to expand the article. In the meantime, I will clean up the article if it is kept by vote. SailorfromNH 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - take another look at the article please. Endomion 17:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Is there a way to nominate an article as "crappy" without having to go through AfD? It seems that half of my AfD nominations end up being wrong after someone fixes up the article. Anyway, nomination withdrawn. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia:Cleanup Uncle G 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    - Nice job on the article rewrite, now a Strong Keep SailorfromNH 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, real place, and thanks for the cleanup. Kappa 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaakko Peltonen

Film director whose works consist of a couple of 3 minute student films. 740 google results for "Jaakko Peltonen", but none of the 50 first results mention a filmmaker. His imdb link has one entry as a special effects assistant. - Bobet 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete and recreate if and when he does anything notable beyond being "promising". --Spondoolicks 20:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Pboyd04 02:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin_Dewson

this article has so little content i couldnt even say its a stub, and hasnt had an attention really since its creation 20 days ago Benon 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, too short. --Thorpe | talk 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Author of which books about SQL, published by who ? Endomion 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cliconnect Internet Telephony

Reads like an ad, probable self promotion (as this was created by User:Cliconnect), wikipedia is not self promotion. W.marsh 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete --D-Day 17:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, Make that Speedy Delete per nomination...too self promoting. Although it's not a biography, I feel like it runs along the lines of WP:AUTO in the line of self promotion.--ViolinGirl^♪ 17:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP is not the yellow pages. Endomion 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. — mark ✎ 11:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Interiot 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howch e ng {chat} 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inhospitable

empty, and not likely to be encyclopedic if created SailorfromNH 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, empty, dicdef if not Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How is this different from other articles with {{wi}}? Shouldn't this be voted as guideline instead of per article? Template_talk:Wi shows this was tried without consensus. --Quarl 02:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as {{wi}}, harmless and likely to be linked to or recreated. Kappa 05:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep the soft redirect as Kappa said. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suasion Resources

This article reads more like an advertiesment. Probably vanity article based on the creator's user name. --D-Day 17:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - google for "Suasion Resources" gets 2,340 hits. Definately verifiable, and seems notable. -Satori ^(talk) 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement of non-notable website or company. Those google results are for various distinct companies named "suasion resources" as far as I can tell. suasionresources.com (the linked website and first google hit) has Alexa rank of 2,086,947; other google hits are unlisted on Alexa. --Quarl 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I would kill a Microsoft article if it was a one-paragraph ad. Endomion 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clesson Robert Jeffrey

Doesn't seem particularly notable Bachrach44 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A reluctant Delete. Seems like a nice guy, but not really notable. Madman 22:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity bio (no claimed notability). --Quarl 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP is not an obituary column. Endomion 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Endomion. — mark ✎ 11:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crocker's rules

Crocker's rules by User:Lee Daniel Crocker (page not created by him). While there is mention of "Crocker's rules" on the Internet, I have not yet found any listing of the rules themselves, just how they are supposed to someome be good guidelines. -- Emact 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Set a time limit to add the rules and clean up, say 7 days after the end of this AfD. If there is no change by then, delete as unencyclopedic. Userfy as Crocker's rules deal with editing Wikipedia. B.Wind 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment No hits in Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Two hits, neither apparently relevant, in a9 book search. One concerns an expedition to the Galapagos in which a participant complains that "Time and again, my desire to climb to the highest point on an island was frustrated by Mr. Crocker's rule that everyone who went ashore had to be back on board by dinner time." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment This seems fairly relevant. But don't we actually have anything on them anywhere within Wikipedia, if that's where they originated?
Delete from main namespace. Not well-known, not in widespread use. May well be worth documenting in Wikipedia namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - An attempt to create a self-help movement from scratch. Endomion 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeniablefactology

Hoax, neologism, original research. Google hits? Grand total of zero. Ifnord 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't have a Google hit, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could be just hitting the internet world starting with this, and you would kill it? You know, there was an journal once that wanted to write about the "All Your Base," Zerowing blunder, but didn't because the manager didn't think the article would be of any future worth. Now look at it.
And even then, I will support it, I read something about this. It is valid.

~Shamino2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamino2 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-26 18:13:33 UTC
- "All Your Base" is still not notable for anything more than the sheer inanity of its sheeplike adherents. This is even less so. Delete and begone. --Agamemnon2 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. This is the religion equivalent of a garage band. --King of All the Franks 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete "I read something about this" doesn't quite meet WP:V (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The article describes a new (parody) religion. Not only is there no evidence that the rest of the world has acknowledged it, and that it has become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, but also there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever outside of this Wikipedia article. (The article cites no sources, as usual.) Our Wikipedia:No original research policy is aimed at exactly this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not the place for the first publications of new religions, new political philosophies, new interpretations of history, new theories of physics, and so forth. The article tells us that the religion was made up by "two boys", moreover. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The place for this is the authors' own web sites. Delete. Uncle G 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher."
The Journal of Southern Religion printed the article on this. It is valid.
- Then you should be able to show us where it is published. Uncle G 19:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - faithcruft. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It doesn't even qualify for BJAODN, if you ask me. -- Perfecto 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This information is completely factual. I am in possesion of literature about this faux religion, and all of the information on this website is correct.
Delete. If you want to immitate the success of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, get a following before documenting it on Wikipedia. --Quarl 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Undeniablecruftology. Endomion 04:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Vary | Talk 04:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — mark ✎ 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess Who's Back?, No Mercy, No Fear, and 50 Cent is the Future

Same reasons as the stack of Snoop Dogg mixtapes. Unofficial hand-made underground mixtape releases w/ no label. An unwikilinked passing mention of No Mercy, No Fear can be (if it already isn't) merged into the history section of the 50 Cent article, but none of the three need their own individual coverage. FuriousFreddy 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - waaaay too obscure for an encyclodpedia entry. Madman 21:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

* Delete. As they say. Pilatus 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Withdrawn. Pilatus 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

These are obvious keep or merge candidates. "50 Cent is the future" is for instance credited as reviving 50 Cent's career after he was seriously injured in a shooting and then dropped by his record label. From the biography on 50 Cent's official homepage, after recording new material on Guess Who's Back?, 50 Cent assembled a crew G-Unit and:

Rather than create new songs as they had before, 50 decided to showcase his hit-making ability by retouching first-class beats which had already been used. They released the red, white and blue bootleg, "50 Cent Is the Future," revisiting material by Jay-Z and even Raphael Saadiq.

That's when the unbelievable happened, and hip-hop history was written. The energetic CD caught the ear of supa MC Eminem, and within a week Em was on the radio saying, '50 Cent is my favorite rapper right now.' Em looked to mentor Dr. Dre to confirm his belief in the young hitmaker, and the good doctor co-signed. Floored by the appreciation of the greats, 50 didn't hesitate in signing with the dream team. [6]
We should certainly not delete this kind of material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then keep and expand No Mercy, No Fear, and 50 Cent is the Future to assert notability. Unless Guess Who's Back? has some sort of historical importance, however, it should be deleted. If no such expansion is done, redirect to 50 Cent or merge into a single article on 50 Cent underground releases. --FuriousFreddy 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep all per Tony Sidaway. Thanks for taking the trouble to research these works. Once again, I would respectfully ask the nom to stop making blanket nominations.-- JJay 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep and then think about merging. Andreww 08:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, 50 Cent mixtapes, especially No Mercy, No Fear. Kappa 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California and userfy Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides. BlankVerse can merge the articles as necessary once he's finished with the information-gathering. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California and Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides

Strangly formatted and strangly coded article, apparently attempting to disambiguate the various meanings of "Eastside" when relating to California. Even stranger is that Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides was also written, and then included into Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California as if it were a template. I'd say delete both, no merge or redirect. --FuriousFreddy 20:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides was created NOT AS A TEMPLATE, but as a short amount of common text that could be transcluded into the Long Beach, California, Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California, and Eastside, Long Beach, California articles. Both the "traditional" Eastside and gang/rap Eastside articles for Long Beach will be expanded as soon as I find the time to search for accurate information. Especially for the gang/rap article, there is a huge amount of misinformation and just plain nonsense, so it is a difficult task finding verifiable information. ^Blank ^Verse 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

- Then userify them until you complete them, find a better name for the Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California, and never tranclude text from one article into two other seperate articles. --FuriousFreddy 13:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can come up with a better name, I'll gladly use it. The facts are that there are two very different Eastside Long Beaches and there needs to be some easy way to differentiate them. The "traditional" Eastside has been called that for at least 60 years. On the other hand, the other Eastside is well-known to almost any rap music fan and is the only Eastside Long Beach that is known outside the LA area. ^Blank ^Verse 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Once I am sure that the text at Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides is accurate and stable, I will probably substitute it into the three articles and then delete it. There seems to be no reason at all to delete Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California except your dislike of the title. ^Blank ^Verse 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California merge Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides into the two articles that currently include it, and then either redirect or delete the latter. User:BlankVerse, inclusion of one article-space text into several other articles is generally not done as it's unnecessarily confusing. For instance, the AFD template currently on it makes both of the others look as if they're up for deletion too, and one of them is not. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dj Ryko Suave

Vanity article for nn musician. Even gives himself away in the article: Dj Ryko Suave is the moniker for an underground, not-well known but thoroughly established and in many DJ circles, influential, producer of "ill" beats. Userify if he wants to keep any of it, delete it otherwise. FuriousFreddy 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sounds like a speedy candidate to me. You can claim fame all you want but you need to show sources. Also check link to nn band claiming two hits. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uniting the States Tour

Bands may be OK, but this tour looks like a non-event. Jamie 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nominated :: Supergolden 15:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but mention it in the pages for each band. --King of All the Franks 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Googling for '"uniting the states" tour' or '"uniting the states" charlotte' shows nothing relevant, only Wikipedia mirrors. Non-notable and unverifiable. --Quarl 02:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Those bands might have toured together without a name for the tour, and a fan might have pulled this name out of his kiester. Endomion 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Ecclesiastes 1:2. — mark ✎ 11:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Espaciojapon

Appears to fail the web guidelines, a Spanish language web forum. Q Q 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. If I had 100 yen for every Japanese culture fan forum... --King of All the Franks 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Website isn't loading, but appears non-notable from article. Alexa rank of 2,366,786 [7]. --Quarl 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Death to forum articles. Endomion 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Endomion. — mark ✎ 11:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happyrobot

Bad article on some blogging forum. I suppose every website, being "verifiable" is now considered encyclopedic? Wikipedia needs to get its standards back. -R. fiend 14:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete vacuous and indiscriminate (i.e. non-notable), although not without humour - like including a "trivia" section as if the rest of the article is anything else. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete N.N. Colin99 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- appears non-notable. Alexa rank of 338,275. --Quarl 02:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - If you have to search for blogs on google now to find them, that means they don't stand out. Endomion 04:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (I could have sworn I speedily deleted the Planting Seeds article). howch e ng {chat} 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planting seeds community awareness project, Basil Shadid

Not sure of the project's notability, nor its founder's. I came across these articles after closing the afd debate (result: delete) on William Maria Rain, one of the co-founders, so I think the Wikipedia community should decide on these as well. RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Claims of police brutalization in Seattle probably means they were arrested for being naughty. Endomion 04:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete google gives about 95 uniques hits for "the planting seeds community" and one of them reads: the planting seeds community awareness project is mainly the love and hard work of two people; basil and billie. Renata3 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. However, because the split was between keep and merge, the article will be kept. This should not be construed as precluding anyone from being bold and performing a merge themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triphylactin

Fictional drug from the novel Ninth Day of Creation by Leonard Crane. One edit, in October 2005. No pages link to it. Delete. Parallel or Together ? 15:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Ninth Day of Creation. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to the nice empty page about the book. Kappa 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Do not merge, simply rewrite to make sure people know the drug is fictional. -- Freemarket 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Freemarket. -- AndrewBartlett 13:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The topic of fictional medicines and drugs is a topic in Wikipedia. See this link. -- OldRightist 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and recreate as redirect to Eden (novel). howch e ng {chat} 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eden:The Novel

A self-published novel from an author not notable enough for an article (or whose article was deleted) and has no notability of its own. I recommend it be ~~deleted~~. Kit 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I now think we should redirect, per Zis Guy. Kit 08:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Eden (novel), after removing history and such Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment re: Just zis Guy: Should a novel by an unknown author really have equal footing with a book by Stanislaw Lem? Kit 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, you were advocating a redirect not a merge. That's what I get for not reading carefully. Kit 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Redirect per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Just zis. Pavel Vozenilek 05:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imageweaver

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete as uncyclopedic. If there's more to it, a "meatier" article on the same subject can be written. B.Wind 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting to get more votes, No Vote --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete--nixie 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Shanel 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOJO Works

I'm relisting this. It was listed earlier today, and I closed it as a speedy deletion. However, another editor informed me that many of the voters in the prior AFD were GNAA members, and the speedy was not valid. I've therefore undeleted the article and relisted it here. All votes from the prior AFD have been copied here; to the closing admin, please make a decision over whether these votes should be counted or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes as copied from the first AFD

Non-notable advertising corporation, what makes them any different from 3000 other internet advertising businesses? Timecop 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete please -- Femmina 06:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete We really need to get rid of these non-notable stub articles. There are way too many. Cptchipjew 06:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, no notability claimed. Flyboy Will 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy delete~~ (see below). In addition the links to companies are pipe links to spam and spyware. --Quarl 08:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per above see below VegaDark 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisted (see top) to December 26, 2005. Insert new comments below.

No vote, and apologies for the overzealous speedy. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep only if existence and notability can be verified. --King of All the Franks 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge with Mediaplex. As far as I can tell, the MOJO products are Mediaplex's group of advertising tools. However, the name on their site to refer to the group seems to be "MOJO Suite" rather than MOJO Works. Alexa shows that Mediaplex has an Alexa Rank of 56, and until mid-2005 was ranked higher than Wikipedia. As much as I dislike internet advertising, this definitely seems to be a notable product and worth covering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Mediaplex, per above. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Ifnord 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
deleteper nom, blatent advert.Obina 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- JJay 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Mediaplex per Starblind. Googling for "mojo works" and Alexa show "MOJO Works" as the name of the website, so perhaps it was the previous name of the company. --Quarl 02:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - No assertion of notability. Endomion 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Mediaplex. Having a 1 liner article in wikipedia is just a waste, you don't see this in areal encyclopedia. --supers 07:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with your conclusion in this particular, but I hold a different opinion about one-liner stubs being useless. In an evolving article-space, they are useful as springboards of expansion. --Agamemnon2 08:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete [blatent advertising, please delete] -- Aigis 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete see above. -- Hosterweis 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - 1 liner with no notability. Renata3 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Mediaplex, guess I kind of got on the bandwagon with speedy vote, but still think it's NN enough for an article of its own. VegaDark 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam Incognito 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pasta patent

google search shows the Tuterri is a brand of handmade pasta. This article doesn't explain why it appeared or how it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia. If the recipe or fabrication process is proprietary, then this article serves no purpose.Ariele 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Madman 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it's like a clumsy attempt at an ad, or... something. Non-salvagable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete.... as something. Renata3 16:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedspeed

I believe this is a spurious article; the only referrence I can find to this seems to be a quote from the article itself; the attached photo also suggests this article was created as a private joke. Scix 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Iten 19:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete bogus info...Industrial revolution hit the US in the 1850s not the TwenCen. Endomion 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the photo at the end just explains everything. Renata3 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate balls

Used to be a specific recipe, which was moved to Wikibooks Cookbook, so now it's just: "Chocolate balls are a snack made of chocolate and peanut butter" and a picture. Googling for "chocolate balls" gives me plenty of hits, of course, but to a myriad of different recipes and concepts of what makes a "chocolate ball". I think this concept is too diffuse to merit an article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Update: I think the keep responses below are well-reasoned. I now vote keep. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Colin99 20:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's verifiable and it's common. One day some gastronomically-inclined user will expand it. Ifnord 20:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete before some deranged South Park fan tries to expand this article into something we'll have to delete or merge later. B.Wind 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fear not, they already have their page. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Leave it to the UK to make it a #1 chart hit. B.Wind 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Never get between a woman and her chocolate balls. Endomion 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The only reasonable argument for deletion seems to be the variation in recipes. If these are considered and expanded on the article will show no bias. Palaeologus 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, popular food item, potential to expand to discuss various recipes and the South Park thing. Kappa 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I have made some minor improvements in the page in response to these comments. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Ergonomes

non-notable, band don't even have a single/album released Oscarthecat 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Note I added {{db-band}} to the article, as vanity bands are now candidates for speedy deletes. Ifnord 20:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable --Eeee 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Only gig listed is one at a friend's house. Endomion 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-band per above. --Quarl 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ames_Tiedeman

Non-notable Oscarthecat 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete - Guinness Book sites product. Very notable... User:Onenex1000

Comment. Page blanked by User:Onenex1000. Please do not blank the page during the AfD process. Humansdorpie 21:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, even if the product was notable, someone whose claim to fame is working for its North American distributor isn't. - Bobet 00:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Robomower (created from the non-biographical content of this article). Endomion 01:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN distributor. And a distributor doesn't even deserve the redirect, and the Robomower page is not properly capitalized anyway, and I would have AFD'd that page myself if I didn't like electric mowers so much — I just NPOV'd it. Chris the speller 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It's notable, keep the article. User:VanillaX 27 December 2005
Delete I don't even see how the product is notable, and none of the extravagent claims made about this guy are verified in any way. --InShaneee 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep"" I do not see any extravagant claims. This guy is changing the world.(—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Onenex1000 (talk • contribs) )
Delete non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 17:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budup

Neologism, probably totally invented [8], not defined anywhere and thus unverifiable. I doubt Wiktionary would want it either, because of that. --W.marsh 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

delete - nonsense. --Oscarthecat 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Del neologism. Xoloz 20:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This is a word invented by a bored schoolboy and introduced into WP when he got home. Endomion 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We need a "nn-neologism" category for speedy deletion. --Quarl 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. How four Americans can comment on what is, or is not, a slang word in the UK is beyond me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.123.251.119 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sage (Book)

This "book" is not known to Amazon or Google, nor can I find much evidence of its author. Unverifiable/Hoax? Xoloz 20:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Also ? vanity publishing. Ifnord 20:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I can't find any mention of it beyond wikipedia mirrors. - Bobet 00:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Book articles must have publisher or ISBN given. Endomion 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quarl 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chez Ray

This is a non-notable page about a home winemaker, complete with blogspot. (Mmm, wine...)

Delete as noted. --Bookandcoffee 20:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ifnord 20:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Q Q 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louisville Eccentric Observer

Orphaned nomination being properly listed Eddie.willers 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Free weekly tabloid of some note, albeit local; it's distributed in my area. Well established; has existed for about 15 years (founded, I think, in '89 or '90.) Speedy keep: invalid VfD added by anon/not-logged-in user. — Smerdis of Tlön 23:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but not speedily, to permit a fair review. Endomion 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete The equivalent of a vanity page. There are notability guidelines for musicians -- shouldn't similar standards apply to newspapers? No, or very little, significant history. 58.147.76.124 05:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment — look at alternative weekly for a selection of the articles about similar papers we already have. Smerdis of Tlön 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a circular of 150,000 means 150,000 people or more would be potentially interested in looking it up. Kappa 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernward Joerges

I gave this article the benefit of the doubt as far as asserting the notability of this professor, but I find no evidence that he is notable. Xoloz 20:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable as far as I can see. --Eeee 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the article isn't very informative but the person has written and/or edited enough books that I'd consider him notable. The linked site has a few under 'publications' and Barnes and Noble lists some here. I've no clue whether the books have been read by 5,000 people but I'd give it the benefit of doubt. - Bobet 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV. How do we know he actually countered the argument? Endomion 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One does not become a professor at a German university unless one is already a researcher of some note. German professors are by definition more notable than "the average college professor" in U.S. terms. I find eight books (co-)authored or (co-)edited by him in the Swedish national library catalogue, using only the full name (Joerges,Bernward)[9], 329 hits in Google Scholar, allowing for hits using only the first name initial, and 770 page hits on Google Books for the same search. This is not Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, but as long as we keep any 19-year old who gets payed to play baseball or soccer, any obscure musical artist with a couple of albums, or any actor with a few roles on IMDB, not to speak of various fictional characters from video games, a real professorship at a research university is a very reasonable claim to notability for academics. If the article is to be deleted because of lack of content, we should be consistent and do that with obscure professional baseball players as well (and that will never happen, as you all well know). u p p l a n d 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, full professor in Germany. Kappa 05:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by request of author. enochlau (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiDebate

Original research? Test posting? Userfy? Help me out here. Ifnord 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

He's trying to orgaize a debate. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia namespace. I left a message on the creator's talk page explaining the situation. Delete, of course. -- Megamix^? 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:WikiDebate. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Meta's Proposals for new projects seems like a good idea to move to, userfy is also a possibility. Q Q 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy or Delete. (Speedy?) BACbKA 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Userfy or Delete. I can see how the idea would be appealing to some, but it's definitely unencyclopedic. Wiki software isn't the most ideal for conducting a debate anyhow. Might be okay at Wikicities. --LesleyW 21:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know. Is there a way that I can delete it? Wikizach 23:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You can add something this to the page:

{{db|article creator requesting deletion. I will put it in my user page.}}

--Quarl 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ca$h (rapper)

I am not speedying this because it makes a plausible claim to notability... except as far as I can tell the claim is not true and he is not famous for that song [10]... but I could be wrong I suppose. --W.marsh 21:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I would. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Notability claim is apparently false if the Google search comes up completely dry (unless the song title is mispelled). --FuriousFreddy 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Quarl 01:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article does not bear Wikipedia standards. Ajwebb 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canyon Players

Advert for a school play. They sound like nice people, but this is not even remotely encyclopedic. -- Gleaming Throw 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Compu ter Joe 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Canyon Del Oro High School article. Jcuk 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Canyon Del Oro High School --Quarl 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth merging anywhere. —Cleared as filed. 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TRIPURANENI RAMASWAMY

This article is a near-exact duplicate of the article at Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudhury. Madman 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudhury Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to above article. Endomion 01:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirect for the benefit of Caps Lock enthusiasts, or just delete. PJM 03:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete. No need to create weird redirects.--Pamri • Talk 05:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete for reasons given above. No redirection please, as this will create a demand for such redirections with capitalized characters for all the articles of the wikipedia. --Bhadani 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- - - I don't really follow the mechanism by which this "demand" would be created? Kappa 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Nothing left to merge as both are identical. --Gurubrahma 07:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and delete - Ganeshk 22:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap and don't clog up AFD. Kappa 05:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge. No Redirect. Redirects are cheap, but a good encyclopedia should be free of unnecessary clutter. utcursch | talk 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Like AFD clutter? Kappa 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - See Bhadani's comment. utcursch | talk 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tributary, Georgia, Tributary at New Manchester

There are many such entries within the wikipedia universe including: Celebration and Seaside in Florida, the Cotton District in Mississippi, King Farm in Maryland, Atlantic Station in Georgia, and Cherry Hill Village in Michigan. Each and every one of these developments is similar in scope and none are public housing developments. If this site is to be deleted each and every one of these should be as well, or are these objections purely subjective? Jabix 09:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Advertising of a new for-profit community that does not appear on MapQuest. Madman 22:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Note identical text at Tributary at New Manchester Pilatus 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete for advertising and for being non-notable communitycruft. Eddie.willers 22:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn't have a ZIP code and likely is a housing development. This isn't an advertising medium. Pilatus 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This would be a keep if it was a non-profit housing development for the less-advantaged, that is so rare as to be really notable. Endomion 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River Country at Point Mallard

Advert for an as yet unbuilt resort development

Delete. Gazpacho 22:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The object of www.Wikipedia.org is to provide information on numerous subjects. To suggest that this page should be deleted because it has not yet been built is completely against the purpose of this website. The "River Country at Point Mallard" is pure fact, it is in the process of being approved and could become reality. I'm sure that there are other pages on things that have not yet been built or put into action, if this page should be deleted because "River Country" has not yet been built, then I suggest that you go forth and strive to delete those other pages of which advertise some other unbuilt structure, unapproved bill, or project.

Keep.AlabamaGuy2007 26 December 2005
Actually, the point of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of general knowledge. An article about some hypothetical resort development does not belong. If the thing actually does get built then maybe it can have its own page, but that page shouldn't read like ad copy like this one does. Delete. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete for crystal balling and advertising. Eddie.willers 22:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"I suggest that you go forth and strive to delete those other pages of which advertise some other unbuilt structure, unapproved bill, or project." Agreed. Delete; Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
strive, we will delete MNewnham 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's not even scheduled to be built yet, just proposed. --Quarl 01:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete until River Country developers put some facts on the ground. Endomion 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This project is not completed and appears to be an advertisement to attract developers and customers. Ajwebb 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. No action taken. Mind matrix 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chi Machine

It's an advertisement about a non-notable exercise machine. I mistook it for non-commercial promotion of pseudoscience, tried to document it, and ended up making it worse. Please delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"If the page is deleted, then so be it rather than allow spam advertising, personal bias, false beliefs and lies be printed. FYI the Chi Machine is hardly non-notable when over 2 million of the original have been sold worldwide. --User:Angel26(Talk) 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)--
Keep content about the merits of the device but delete any information which will lead readers to an online order form. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog. Endomion 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete pseudoscientific quackery, and that's being generous. --StoatBringer 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete blatant advertising for misleadingly named pseudoscientific fad device. --Fire Star 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not disagreeing that it's a pseudoscientific quack device designed to fleece people of their money, but the damn thing has sold over two million devices, which makes it notable, and thus encyclopedic. We merely need to phrase the encyclopedia entry in such a way that it is clear that this thing is not endorsed by real science or medicine. Astrology is pseudoscience too - should it not have its own article? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete snake oil. "Passive aerobic exercise" my arse. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even if its claims are dubious, the fact that it's been solid millions of times and there's even a paper written about it PMID 15328757 warrants inclusion. The content of the article is what will need editing, perhaps the title too...it may be more appropriately named "Sun Ancon Chi Machine". Pseudoscience and quackery, etc. are well-referenced in Wikipedia! Andrew73 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as blatant advertising. Wikipedia does not need an article about every product in existence. Even if it weren't quackery it would still be sub-notable. Durova 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, millions of sales, covered in a medical journal... it's disappointing to see so many POV votes. Kappa 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per previous keep votes (remove any advertising links and make sure true scientific argument is presented). --Petros471 11:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete MSTCrow 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was all rules ignored so this WP:NOT spam gets speedily deleted. FCYTravis 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evud

Finishing incomplete nomination. Article is nothing but spam for a website trying to make money by getting people to pay for links. I see nothing that marks it as worthy of an article. GraemeL ^(talk) 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There should be a speedy deletion criterion to include such ridiculous form of spam. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly. The premise of this advertspam is "pay me 50,000 USD or I will let my domain name expire". What kind of business model is that? --Quarl 00:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article needs to be removed rather quickly, possibly a speedy delete. It is spam. Ajwebb 01:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete -Call the bluff, this like when Oral Roberts said God would call him home if he didn't raise 8 million dollars. Endomion 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No Delete Spammy to me but reminds me MillionDollarHomePage, maybe have a historical meaning one day! Whos knows! If advertsing link is not allowed at Wikipedia then yes please delete it!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Q Q 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of faux pas

Delete. Firstly, this list is not, nor could it ever be, complete, and faux pas change faster than the feasible rate at which Wikipedia could be edited--by the time a faux pas is verifiable or citable it could be on its way out. An incomplete list of faux pas is something more appropriate for WikiTravel to help people get along as well as possible in a new culture. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide, it seems pointless to have a list of faux pas. A few examples in the Faux pas article should suffice. This article could also be transwiki'd and put it into the Talk section of each country on WikiTravel.

Secondly, this list does not fit the general usage of lists on Wikipedia; that is, a list of links to articles relevant to a particular topic. If someone wants to do important research on cultural aspects of certain countries, they would find better information by starting at List of national cultures. magicOgre 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename to List of Cultural Differences or something like that. This is a valid topic, and can actually be educational and useful, unlike 90% of lists on here. Flyboy Will 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- What about the fact that we already have several pages on the culture of each country? magicOgre 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just as good as the lists we regularly delete. -- JJay 00:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki per nominator. Some of those listed faux pas are controversial. This doesn't even differentiate between the different subcultures of the US (the biggest list). --Quarl 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes it needs major clean up. Yes it is not balanced, nor fully factually correct. But these are reasons to fix. Obina 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but add a note that an external source for this information is needed. Endomion 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but be more specific about what constitutes a 'faux pas'. 'Stuff that can be sort of annoying to some people' do not constitute a faux pas (e.g., waiters interrupting a conversation to check on the table, and stopping a face-to-face conversation to take a phone call). I'm surprised that 'discussing private matters on a mobile phone in a public place' isn't on the list, but I'd also argue that it shouldn't be, so there you have it. --Stephen Deken 18:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename. This is not a "list of faux pas", it is a discussion of cultural mores. As such it is encyclopaedic, but needs much more background to the reason why, in each case, the act is considered socially unacceptable. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1990s/2000s Identity Theory

Looks very much like original research. FuriousFreddy 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete This seems to be someone's essay. Even if it were accurate, it is confusingly-named, as well. Jkelly 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've heard that theory mentioned on radio one day a while ago, but this does look like OR. Flyboy Will 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research --Quarl 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The theory looks like it is true, but it is true O.R. Endomion 01:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ajwebb 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The 'identity' of a decade isn't readily apparent until that decade begins to draw to a close. Perhaps this can be re-posted in 2009 or 2010, but then only as a referent to an actual analysis done by someone not on the radio. --Stephen Deken 18:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trandoshan Rifle

Little content. No Context. Weapon does exist in the Star Wars fictional universe, but its a game weapon from the Dark Forces series, not a starship. Previously deleted (see here for details). I don't think its applicable for a speedy delete (G-4, recreation of deleted material), as this is a far smaller and 'inferior' article to the previously deleted version. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This article is even wrong about what a Trandoshan rifle is. And even if it were right, it shouldn't be allowed to stick around. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as mentioned above. Evil Eye 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above. - Bobet 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Quarl 00:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete My rule on Star Warscruft is that it must list a citation in a published work. Endomion 00:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - NeoJustin 05:15, December 27, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newtonmas

Newtonmas was nominated last year, on 2004-12-24. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas/2004-12-24.

This celebration and the traditions appear to be nothing more than the invention of Gordon Worley. Google shows most mentions are mirrors to wikipedias or sites linking back to Gordon Worley's own site. None of the non-encyclopedia sites appear to have any mention of this 'celebration' dating from the last two years unless they are referring to this Wikipdia article itself. It would appear the article itself is perpetuating the celebration. I vote for delete. Evil Eye 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral - I do find it worthwhile to celebrate Newton's birthday but I can't say I support this ridiculous name. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. OK, time to come clean. By now I think I probably have as much personal experience with Newtonmas as anyone. Not self-initiated even: When I was a young adolescent my science teacher had an annual tradition of having his religiously diverse class celebrate Newtonmas as a "neutral" winter holiday. There was no "secular" bend to it, just a pro-science one. We had a little tree with apples and calculators hanging from it, and we ate pasta (manicotti I think), which according to our teacher was "Newton's favorite food". It was fun. Maybe I should make a website about it, and then I'll be an expert source like Gordon Whorley!--Pharos 23:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
delete. No source cited after all this time means it is original work. Obina 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, Gordon Whorley's a source. And Robin Zebrowski of Flickr (Newtonmas 2004) (Newtonmas 2005) is a source. And I'll be a source if I have to! This isn't a made-up celebration.--Pharos 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. Both Gordon and Robin have connections or interests in the academic world of Artificial Intelligence, so maybe one passed the holiday onto the other. Besides, since when has the blog of one person, the picture album of another and the science teacher of the third constituted enough evidence for the notability of a holiday? Evil Eye 00:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep; The word seems to be in use. Clean up and cite as necessary. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sources seem very problematic. -- JJay 00:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism once removed. Consider this the opening shot in the War on Newtonmas. Endomion 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment.I think a source is something published, not the opinion of any editor.Obina 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a neologism; it's a holiday over 10 or 20 years old. Usenet postings go back to 1992, and a user on Talk:Newtonmas very credibly says to have made a radio broadcast about Newtonmas back in 1984. Look, I'm not saying it's the most popular holiday. But many people have heard of it, and a small but real group of people do celebrate it. Unlike high schools or something, there aren't that many small holidays; there's no reason to have an overly exculsive criterion of notability for them.--Pharos 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Me and some friends could devise a new holiday tomorrow involving a historical figure. We could celebrate it, tell people about it and mention it on forums we go to, in emails, on our blogs and post pictures of us celebrating it. This will let people beyond the group who celebrate it know about the new holiday. We could do this for several years. We would be a small but real group of people who celebrate this holiday. But would it make the holiday notable? I think not. Also, looking over the edits on Talk:Newtonmas, the person who added the info about the radio transmission appears to be quoting source written by Michael Morotta, who wrote an page linked to in the main article, so this radio broadcast was carried out by one of the few people we've already got associated with NewtonmasEvil Eye 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Even if it's someone's kooky creation it seems to have caught on some. It may not get that many Google hits, but it gets what(for lack of a better word) I'll call "quality Google hits." The York Daily Record mentions it[11]. At Google News it's mentioned at some Wessex paper.[12] The idea of celebrating Newton's birthday is certainly not this guys invention. If we can actually have Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians this seems a slam-dunk easy keep.--T. Anthony 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's doesn't follow at all; the article namespace has very different standards from the user namespace. Doops | talk 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I saw this on the selected anniversaries on the main page for the 25th, and since then I've been trying to figure out the purpose of this page or Newtonmas in general. (Notorious4life 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
Keep. I had already heard about this before I read the Wikipedia article. It's notable in certain humanist subcultures. The decision whether a celebration is notable enough to be featured on the Main Page should be separate from the decision whether there can be an article about it.--Eloquence * 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keepesque. This just about flies over the notability radar. I'd let it stick around for another year, maybe two. --Agamemnon2 09:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hardly notable, small google test (654 including WP clones) BACbKA 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete'. It isn't notable. GhePeU 13:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've heard about this from Slovenian physics students before Wikipedia existed, so it obviously has some existance. Better sources would be helpful. Zocky 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per T. Antony's evidence, and since it's notable enough to have a "War on Newtonmas" declared. Kappa 22:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I had heard of this holiday well before I read it on Wikipedia. It is commonly mentioned in scientific circles, and I've often heard about it in science classes as a pro-science way to celebrate the holidays. Tigerhawkvok 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Tigerhawkvok. WikiFanatic 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep: Newtonmas is certainly interesting enough to keep. Whether it's real enough is shakier, but I'll take the word of the various editors who vouch for it above. I do think the "traditions" § should go, though -- it seems to be entirely inspired by the suggestions in Gordon Worley's blog. Also, since the wikipedia isn't a soapbox, Newtonmas probably shouldn't be in mainpage selected anniversaries until its popularity begins to approach that of Festivus. Doops | talk 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it should be Hookemas ;-) Actually this should be an article about Gordon Worley if he's notable, but Newtonmas itself is a conceit and really is not widely observed. It's a bit like the joke religions we delete all the time. Except that in this case it at least has a worthy aim. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Keepish I just noticed the article on Wikipedia, (I saw Newtonmas as a link in the "See also" section of the Christmas article) but I had also heard of it way before this. It was a cute surprise to see there was article for it. Al-Andalus 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This "holiday" seems to have all the exact same (secular) aspects as Christmas, therefore it's simply an atheistic celebration of the secular Christmas, not a seperate holiday. PatrickA 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Comment. From just above-- Not to mention, Newtonmas is hardly a secular holiday when you consider not only was Newton a famous scientist, but he was much more into the (Christian) Bible than science. Also, in accordance with the currently used Gregorian calendar, Newton's birthday should accurately be celebrated on 4 January, not 25 December. PatrickA 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

No, that's not true. It is not customary to recalculate pre-Gregorian dates. Doops | talk 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And even if it was, what difference, would that make? Newton was both a Christian and a scientist; you're just giving your personal criticism of how Newton is commemorated– what does this have to do with notability?--Pharos 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep I created the Wikipedia page and wrote my blog entry about it because numerous people had discussed Newtonmas with me. At the original time of my blog article's creation, there was very little you could find on the Internet about Newtonmas. The holiday is becoming more visible on the Internet and I've read several blogs where the writers have mentioned either celebrating it or at least observing it. To me, people are looking for information on Newtonmas, so Wikipedia should try its best to supply that information. G Gordon Worley III 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill in Portland Maine

Not really notable. I say Delete. Eeee 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the Daily Kos article, since that's pretty much the extent of his influence. Googling for the article title gives a ton of google hits, but most of them are from the site in question and of the rest only around 200 are meaningful. - Bobet 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Kos. Gazpacho 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Would love to vote keep for Bill, but I'm overwhelmingly concerned with verifiability here. How do we know that Molly really exists? Or that Bill is really named Bill? Like with porn stars, can we take this kind of risk? -- JJay 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Daily Kos --Quarl 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to DailyKos. FCYTravis 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above. -- Grev 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Daily Kos is a blog, hence it is a forum, hence Bill is a forum personality, hence no bio on WP.

Endomion 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment This is true, there isn't really a need for an encyclopedia article dedicated towards a lesser known forum personality. --Eeee 01:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Daily Kos. (ESkog)^(Talk) 10:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Daily Kos, per multiple above comments. Even if it is forumcruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 04:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, should be listed at WP:CFD if at all. —Cleared as filed. 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Books by Haruki Murakami

Redundant Category

Delete. This page is redundant due to the bibliography on the Haruki Murakami main biography, and furthermore is less complete and contains less information than that list. Ario 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is my first AFD posting, and I wasn't aware of the separate process for Category for Deletion. Since I'm not an admin, I'm going to let the AFD process run its course, and then nominate this to CFD. Ario 08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should instead list this at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion --Quarl 06:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Don't bother, categories are never deleted for being redundant with lists. Note that just adding something to the list won't make it appear in the "categories" section at the bottom of the page. Kappa 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 26

[edit] Asrock Graphics Interface

[edit] Assembly of American Unionists

[edit] Googolunvigintiplex

[edit] Outspoken

[edit] British Government Simulation

[edit] Workaurant

[edit] Cristobal Ortiz

[edit] Vigdor Schreibman

[edit] Burrito Brava

[edit] Oilfight

[edit] War on Christmas

[edit] Justin Black

[edit] Copious

[edit] AirLex Animations

[edit] Three-star restaurant

[edit] Grenta Crossing

[edit] Ro Locastra

[edit] Remington and the Rattlesnakes

[edit] Armifulation

[edit] List of movies set in Taylor, MI

[edit] Stephen R. Gyurke

[edit] Pierson B. Reading

[edit] Brutality (band), Screams of Anguish and When the Sky Turns Black

[edit] Worth of chins

[edit] Kwekwe High School

[edit] Harold Rodham

[edit] David Quinson

[edit] Adam Hayes

[edit] Collection plate

[edit] Martin Hudson

[edit] Yahoo! Sports Fantasy NBA

[edit] Qasimate

[edit] Support Local Trade

[edit] Aisha (Romancing SaGa)

[edit] Albert (Romancing SaGa)

[edit] Gray (Romancing SaGa)

[edit] Minstrel (Romancing SaGa)

[edit] Neidhart (Romancing SaGa)

[edit] Comrade Dr. Edward Ikem Okeke

[edit] Culture of Asia

[edit] Temporomandibular Repositioning and Physiological Performance

[edit] Keith Cooper

[edit] American National Front

[edit] Systematic bias

[edit] MOJO Works

[edit] Pelf

[edit] Librarians (band)

[edit] David Wu (musician)

[edit] Achillean

[edit] Voice of the Borg

[edit] Skye Thorstenson and The Elk Hotel

[edit] Mark Vearrier

[edit] Charmed and Dangerous (Charmed Episode)

[edit] Dragon ballooning

[edit] Pneumatic trail

[edit] Michael S. Heiser

[edit] Tolithia

[edit] Ben Fitzgerald

[edit] Smopping

[edit] Vcms

[edit] ChannelOne

[edit] Izzy Goldrunner

[edit] List of Jewish historians

[edit] Dennis Roberts

[edit] This Is Fake DIY

[edit] Sixth method

[edit] Kancer-Kylie: Breast Cancer Fundraiser

[edit] Fartinbuger

[edit] Peer2mail

[edit] Ensoniq OPUS

[edit] The Secret 7000

[edit] Sakal an-Khâr, Anarikê, Tanturak and Anbalukkhôr

[edit] Stargate Wars

[edit] EastEnders Autographs

[edit] PC Management Software

[edit] List of alleged pedophiles